Can Mobile SAMs Counter Air Superiority/Supremacy?

I found an interesting article here:



After reading it, I am left with the impression that modern SAM systems are largely untested against modern Air Power. Of course, the vice versa is also true.

One thing we've seen from the Iraq and Libya campaigns is that ground forces may as well be unarmed civilians when faced against an enemy who dominates the air. It becomes impossible to move your troops anywhere when the enemy can destroy your entire army when it's on the road.

So how come we don't see these convoys protected by mobile SAM batteries? Is it because they're ineffective or unaffordable?

to a degree, mobile Sams have been a threat to aircraft now for over fifty years now. they offer a option to try and counter air superiority and many countries who can not afford a air force buy them but its not a cure all. Top Air forces have moved to counter with SEAD. most of the mobile sams are limited in three ways.
one) they have to use a Radar to get there first lock on. kill that radar and they are useless. how to kill that radar is to bait it. not every target is what the Sam's computer thinks it is. against saddam the Us used drones to confuse the targets the baddies would lock on to a drone thinking F16 and then kill in the process the US learned where the radar was.
Alternative guidance systems are possible but only to limited range.
two) they have range limitations, a fighter may not be as fast as a missile but it can fly a lot farther, it the fighter can just keep out of that range window she is open to do as she pleases.
three) as time goes by and stealth advances you have too keep up with the jones. a 25 year old SAM site is not going to see a F35 until its to late.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

one) they have to use a Radar to get there first lock on. kill that radar and they are useless. how to kill that radar is to bait it. not every target is what the Sam's computer thinks it is. against saddam the Us used drones to confuse the targets the baddies would lock on to a drone thinking F16 and then kill in the process the US learned where the radar was.
Alternative guidance systems are possible but only to limited range.

Click to expand...

This is something that I don't understand. Are the radars a part of the mobile SAM battery, or do they exist as a different entity? Are the radars mobile or stationary?

unaffordable.

SAM systems are always on defensive. enemy always has the initiative. he chooses where to strike and when. To protect everything in such a manner that makes the attacks prohibitively costly to the enemy, one has to have almost all the assets covered, 24/7. When one looks at costs of modern air defense systems, one can see that's really not possible to fulfill.

One can *try* to mask the SAM deployments and attempt SAM traps, but that really is more based on luck than anything else, plus it means that you've grouped your AD assets on one spot and made other areas of your army / infrastructure more exposed and vulnerable. And even if you make a successful trap and shoot down one strike package, in most cases it won't mean a won war. It will just make the enemy aware you've grouped your assets there and he's free to strike at other places. Plus he'll be more alert to possible future sam traps.

depends on the system. I know with the PAC the Radar is mobile but its a separate unit from the TEL and the control trailer because of the size required the Radar is fairly big as big as the missile carriers.

In the Case of the Iraqi defence I think the Radars were fixed.

Totoro said:

unaffordable.

SAM systems are always on defensive. enemy always has the initiative. he chooses where to strike and when. To protect everything in such a manner that makes the attacks prohibitively costly to the enemy, one has to have almost all the assets covered, 24/7. When one looks at costs of modern air defense systems, one can see that's really not possible to fulfill.

One can *try* to mask the SAM deployments and attempt SAM traps, but that really is more based on luck than anything else, plus it means that you've grouped your AD assets on one spot and made other areas of your army / infrastructure more exposed and vulnerable. And even if you make a successful trap and shoot down one strike package, in most cases it won't mean a won war. It will just make the enemy aware you've grouped your assets there and he's free to strike at other places. Plus he'll be more alert to possible future sam traps.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that SAM systems are only effective at ambush attacks? So they're not effective at protecting, say, an advancing tank battalion?

Unless you had multiple units of SAMs playing leap frog. No.

i am not saying SAMs can't be tactically effective. i am saying that relying on SAM systems to deny air superiority to your enemy and at the same time protecting all or most of your assets can't be cost effective in the long run. Sure, you can pull it off if you're 2-3 times more bigger than your enemy and your military has more money to spend. But in that case you're mismanaging the money, you'd be better off going on the offensive.

Agreed, the best bet would be a mix of late model fighters and up to date Sam systems.

solarz said:

This is something that I don't understand. Are the radars a part of the mobile SAM battery, or do they exist as a different entity? Are the radars mobile or stationary?

Click to expand...

Question is to complex for a simple answer . For example , in Soviet doctrine you would have strategic , operational and tactical units of PVO (air defense) . There would be lots of different radar types on each level ( EW , observation and acquisition , tracking , targeting .... ) . Each unit of air defense could operate in network or independently . Therefore , for example , your Buk battery may be on the march with their own organic radars turned off (although they could theoretically turn then on even while moving) , and then be alerted from EW radar or another battery , and deploy for combat .

--------------------------

As for your original question , as a rule of thumb SAM always beats aircraft of same generation . There are many examples , from Vietnam war , Arab-Israeli conflicts , Iraq-Iran war to Russia-Georgia war in 2008 .

Only problem is that side relaying on SAMs is usually inferior , both technologically and numerically , so SAMs employed are most likely one or two generation behind the aircraft . So you get the wrong impression that SAMs are useless