SA11 Tactics

[Spurts]

2 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

If your goal is realism, adding a Russian Army unit (SA-19) to a Russian Air Defense unit (S-300PS/SA-10B) is highly unrealistic.  I have never seen a point defense unit parked at an S-300/S-400 battery in real life.  Pantsir is allegedly deployed with S-400 batteries... I say allegedly, because once again, I have yet to see one deployed in such a manner... for sure Army units (any point defense unit which isn't Pantsir) would be unrealistic.

 

Of course, none of that matters if you are doing it for fun!

Just to up the difficulty.  I spent so much time trying to figure out how to HARM an SA-10 with a Viper then figured out dropping four JDAMS with one pickle in the Hornet meant I just had to get close enough then I could pop all the radars and the CC vehicle.  Once that got easy I started doing dumb bombs.  When I was using Mk-82s on an F-14A it just got silly.  Putting the SA19 in was just to stop me from running over the system into min range.  

[Whiskey11]

1 minute ago, Spurts said:

Just to up the difficulty.  I spent so much time trying to figure out how to HARM an SA-10 with a Viper then figured out dropping four JDAMS with one pickle in the Hornet meant I just had to get close enough then I could pop all the radars and the CC vehicle.  Once that got easy I started doing dumb bombs.  When I was using Mk-82s on an F-14A it just got silly.  Putting the SA19 in was just to stop me from running over the system into min range.  

Fair enough! I know the feeling which is how I ended up in Skynet and Act-Mobile for Tac SAMS!

[Spurts]

13 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

Fair enough! I know the feeling which is how I ended up in Skynet and Act-Mobile for Tac SAMS!

What are those?

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, Whiskey11 said:

If your goal is realism, adding a Russian Army unit (SA-19) to a Russian Air Defense unit (S-300PS/SA-10B) is highly unrealistic.  I have never seen a point defense unit parked at an S-300/S-400 battery in real life.  Pantsir is allegedly deployed with S-400 batteries... I say allegedly, because once again, I have yet to see one deployed in such a manner... for sure Army units (any point defense unit which isn't Pantsir) would be unrealistic.

The only example I've seen are the air defences around Khmeimim/Latakia air base where Pantsir and S-400 are deployed together, but this seems more like an edge case.

[Whiskey11]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

The only example I've seen are the air defences around Khmeimim/Latakia air base where Pantsir and S-400 are deployed together, but this seems more like an edge case.

Pantsir being effectively a joint project between the company, the Russian Army, and Russian Air Force (where the former Air Defense Forces are now), I'm not going to be surprised if they eventually start showing up at sites.  Right now though, they generally aren't... probably because they are presently near the front lines with the army. 

 

Where I start raising eyebrows is when people start putting SA-15's near S-300PS systems under the guise of "muh realisms!" when the SA-15, an army vehicle, is stationed at an S-300PS, an air defense forces unit.  Not only have I not seen that on Google Earth, but combining those two units together doesn't make sense given they are different branches with two very different purposes.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@Whiskey11 What would be realistically used as point defense of an S300 site? 

[Whiskey11]

17 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@Whiskey11 What would be realistically used as point defense of an S300 site? 

This discussion gets messy very fast unless we specify which variant of S-300.  There are three "branches" of S-300 development.  The S-300V for the Army, the S-300P for the Air Defense Forces, and the S-300F for the Navy.  Each has sub variants and the distinctions aren't super important to cover between the sub variants in this discussion so we'll stick to the three major branches. 

For the S-300V's, it's entirely plausible a Tor system, Tunguska, or Pantsir could be used but these S-300 systems (S-300V/VM/V4 (SA-12, SA-23, SA-23B)) are not presently in the game outside of mods.  Even if they were, it's unlikely these systems would be close enough to the front line to need their own point defense on the site.  That's not how IADS generally work!  

For the S-300P, the only plausible point defense is the Pantsir... it's REALLY important to point out that in looking at real life S-300P sites and S-400 sites, I've seen Pantsir ONCE at a site in the Moscow air defense ring.  That includes mapping the entirety the Soviet era SAM site locations, many of these positions are still in active use today, albeit with different systems than before.  Case in point, the S-400 locations in Kaliningrad are located on a former S-200 (SA-5) site.  No Pantsir seen at that base.  Beyond the Pantsir, there really isn't any other system the PVO (air defense forces) would have. 

The PVO's area of responsibility was defending Strategic Level assets like airfields and factories from ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as bombers and other aircraft... in theory, if HARM or Maverick got to them, the army air defense forces AND the air force failed at their job.

The S-300F had access to the AK-630 CIWS systems on board the various cruisers which carried it.

As a concept, "point defense" against incoming missiles is a relatively new concept.  A lot of people talk about Tor (SA-15) as being the original point defense option but even original versions of Tor were focused on 1980's era ballistic and cruise missiles.  Talking about Tomahawk style radar cross sections, not HARM, Maverick, GMLRS, etc.  While I have no direct evidence to support the concept, what I can say is anecdotally based upon information gleaned from current conflicts, the ability to intercept a HARM/Maverick/GMLRS sized rocket still remains a really large challenge for even Pantsir, never mind an S-300 as we see in game which dates to the mid 80's. 

As a whole, the S-300 system (all three branches) has limited "point defense" capability.  The original designs called for defense against ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.  That'd be like Pershing I and II sized or Tomahawk sized missiles.  A Tomahawk is nearly TWICE the diameter of a HARM, for instance.  I'd be shocked if these systems could engage anything like HARM with any reliability.

So in truth, for OUR S-300PS, the realistic answer is none. At least if you are limiting yourself to systems presently in game and not as mods.

With all of that in mind, this is a video game (simulator, if you will) with unlimited possibilities on how a scenario can be played.  If adding a Tor to an S-300PS fits your fancy, then have at it!   No one knows what the Soviet Union, or Russia would do with PVO air defense units in a conflict on their soil, so you can roleplay it that the Army lent them a bunch of point defense systems!

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Somehow it didn't cross my mind that S300 class SAM would simply be far enough from the frontline that it wouldn't need additional protection

[Whiskey11]

7 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Somehow it didn't cross my mind that S300 class SAM would simply be far enough from the frontline that it wouldn't need additional protection

Certainly because of how relatively static the S-300P versions are, you wouldn't want them anywhere near the front line. The S300V versions are a little more mobile, but you definitely don't want them close enough to be within standard artillery range from the front line.  With a max range of about 47 miles on the 9m83 Gladiator missile, that's not a huge window to work in and cover the front line area.

 

Regardless, the longer range SAMs are generally deployed around high value areas with medium range systems making the next layer with short range effectively being right behind the front line. That's not always the case, but it certainly is the most common. 

 

And all of this is to say, the Buk family of vehicles is particularly nasty because you never know where they are going to pop up in a battle space.  Even if you locate a system, they are mobile enough to just change locations in a matter of minutes. That's why I run the Act Mobile branch of Skynet IADS with my tactical SAMs moving frequently. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Whiskey11

[Nealius]

On 3/6/2022 at 1:50 PM, Jetliner said:

Hey all!  Been playing Liberation and using it to really learn everything there is to know about the planes I like but its finally time to disable my first SA11 site.  After a bit of research I found that each launcher is also a track radar and therefore the entire site needs to be leveled to eliminate the threat.

In my experienced I've noticed the following: Once you kill the Snow Drift (SD) radar their engagement range becomes limited to 14nm. Using terrain masking it's easy to get within Maverick range of them and it appears they can't engage that close, but I'm not 100% if that wasn't because they ran out of missiles on me. I've also found that lobbing GBU38s at them from 30,000ft Mach1 can keep you outside their engagement zone as long as they don't have a Snow Drift.

[_SteelFalcon_]

14 hours ago, Nealius said:

In my experienced I've noticed the following: Once you kill the Snow Drift (SD) radar their engagement range becomes limited to 14nm. Using terrain masking it's easy to get within Maverick range of them and it appears they can't engage that close, but I'm not 100% if that wasn't because they ran out of missiles on me. I've also found that lobbing GBU38s at them from 30,000ft Mach1 can keep you outside their engagement zone as long as they don't have a Snow Drift.

Or you kill the resupply truck with a gbu 38, then drain all their missiles. No reloads for them  

[norman99]

On 7/18/2023 at 5:47 AM, Whiskey11 said:

No one knows what the Soviet Union, or Russia would do with PVO air defense units in a conflict on their soil, so you can roleplay it that the Army lent them a bunch of point defense systems!

This really is an important point people often overlook.

I’ve spent some time researching both fixed SAM sites, and army air defence units, in an attempt to better replicate realistic scenarios in DCS. The conclusion I’ve come to, when building pre ‘92 missions in the Caucasus, is beyond the fixed SA-2/3/5/10 sites, all mobile and short range defences, including AAA, are army units and we have no idea how they’d be deployed in this area, other that what units were garrisoned in the Transcaucasian & North Caucasus Military Districts at the time. This is especially true if the scenario is a major air operation with minimal ground forces, such as Allied Force, as the wouldn’t be a traditional ‘front line’ with which to position the army air defence units around.

Because of this, I guess most people understandably look to the Middle East for examples/inspiration of IADS with a mix of fixed long range, mobile short range, and AAA units. Places like Syria and Iraq definitely have a more “understandable” IADS implementation, with sites such as airfields visibly defended by a mix of units including permanent fixed site SAMs, mobile SAMs and AAA (both often protected by revetments/berms).

Edited December 2, 2023 by norman99

[Whiskey11]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:57 AM, norman99 said:

This really is an important point people often overlook.

I’ve spent some time researching both fixed SAM sites, and army air defence units, in an attempt to better replicate realistic scenarios in DCS. The conclusion I’ve come to, when building pre ‘92 missions in the Caucasus, is beyond the fixed SA-2/3/5/10 sites, all mobile and short range defences, including AAA, are army units and we have no idea how they’d be deployed in this area, other that what units were garrisoned in the Transcaucasian & North Caucasus Military Districts at the time. This is especially true if the scenario is a major air operation with minimal ground forces, such as Allied Force, as the wouldn’t be a traditional ‘front line’ with which to position the army air defence units around.

Because of this, I guess most people unknowingly look to the Middle East for examples/inspiration of IADS with a mix of fixed long range, mobile short range, and AAA units. Places like Syria and Iraq definitely have a more “understandable” IADS implementation, with sites such as airfields visibly defended by a mix of units including permanent fixed site SAMs, mobile SAMs and AAA (both often protected by revetments/berms).

If you haven't checked out The IADS Project's Google Earth KMZ, you really should!  (https://github.com/Whiskey-11/The-IADS-Project)  Not that I'm bias (I am :P), but it's a pretty awesome conveniently searchable KMZ file with nearly all of the known PVO SAM site locations and some speculative Army positions.

As for the SA-10, Recoil and I (the two people doing the IADS Project stuff), have been doing research on the tactics the S-300PMU batteries in East Germany would have done.  The "War plan" for those units was to displace from their fixed positions to field expedient positions in case of war.  The fixed positions were known to be marked by NATO forces for targeting just like the older fixed position SAM units.  I can't imagine they would go far from those fixed positions, but certainly they'd move "off the X" to avoid being in a known location.... which is why it's a little surprising to see some real world results of S-400 batteries being located less than a km from their pre-war location in Crimea during the current war.

There is a lot about the Soviet/Russian militaries which doesn't make a lot of sense... the biggest one to me is that the Army and PVO units were not on the same EWR networks for their IADS.  They ran completely separate IADS and completely separate EWRs... absolutely mind boggling that it took until the S-400 to fix that behavior.