Almaz S-300: China's "Offensive" Air Defense

Pointblank

Senior Member
Even then, a good FLIR or ground mapping radar system would pickup a radar installation that is not radiating, and it can be attacked with conventional weapons. SEAD is not just about shooting anti-radiation missiles at radars; its only part of the mission. Jamming, suppressing, or even the destruction of the air defence systems are all part of this.
 

Scratch

Captain
Over 1000 Harms were fired during the conflict while the number of destroyed radars can be counted on your fingers (single digit number).

About 10.500 combat sorties were flown by NATO in operation allied force, one F-117 was shot down, another heavily damaged, and apparently 32 UAVs were downed. I think that's all the losses attributed to enemy fire.
Looking at those ratios, these 1000+ HARMs did a darn good job protecting NATO strike aircraft.
As the name of their mission says, supression of eney air defence, they just need to deny those radars to work. A radar can be shut down making the missile go anywhere, but as long as the missile is in the air, the radar has to stay off, hence giving the strike aircraft valuable seconds to pass an area or commence an attack. That is a complete success.
The destruction of enemy air defence is another, further going effort, involving more than just HARM missiles.
 

Infra_Man99

Banned Idiot
Regarding the Kosovo-NATO war, the NATO faction greatly outnumbered their opponents/Serbian-allied faction. Wikipedia claims the NATO-allied faction was greatly outnumbered, but this just shows how dumb or fake Wikipedia can be. The US, Western Europe, Kosovo, and other allies greatly outnumbered the Serbians and their allies in terms of military size, economy, real estate, and population size. Unfairness is a fundamental part of war, but in terms of quality of technology and ability, comparing superior numbers against inferior numbers has limited use.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I'm sure I also remember an F16 being downed and an A10 being heavily damaged.

And all this is against an overwhelmingly outnumbered and outclassed opponent.

As for decoys, well just because the US over-engineer their TRAINING (ie, not disposable) signature simulators does not mean a short-life DISPOSABLE decoy need to built to anywhere near the same specifications or capabilities.

You can't have it both ways. Either the missiles are designed to be adaptable and able to engage a very wide range of emitters, including low powered ones, or its a very inflexible system that will be hard to adjust to unexpected or new threats.

Considering the development and gradual proliferation of ASEA technology, if HARMs cannot engage emitters with lower power emissions then legacy search radars, then the USAF have far bigger worries then engaging microwave ovens.
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
I'm sure I also remember an F16 being downed and an A10 being heavily damaged.

And all this is against an overwhelmingly outnumbered and outclassed opponent.

As for decoys, well just because the US over-engineer their TRAINING (ie, not disposable) signature simulators does not mean a short-life DISPOSABLE decoy need to built to anywhere near the same specifications or capabilities.

You can't have it both ways. Either the missiles are designed to be adaptable and able to engage a very wide range of emitters, including low powered ones, or its a very inflexible system that will be hard to adjust to unexpected or new threats.

Considering the development and gradual proliferation of ASEA technology, if HARMs cannot engage emitters with lower power emissions then legacy search radars, then the USAF have far bigger worries then engaging microwave ovens.

I have news for you, the equipment used in depots to create test signals is not mil-spec ruggedized equipment. It is built more or less onesy-twosy from off the shelf components and used in a lab setting. There isn't much money to be saved with inexpensive components because an awful lot of what goes into them has no cheap commercial counterpart. So what you would have is some notional Serbian lab trying to piece together some devices that simulate a radar signal's characteristics mostly out of components from the radars themselves. You won't find the pieces you need in any catalog or at the local Dick Smith or Radio Shack. These items come from a very limited number of military electronics suppliers. But have fun with your fantasy anyway :)
You genuinely have no feel for how little energy a microwave oven creates compared to a target illumination or search radar. In any developed environment the energy from that microwave will be lost in the signals from building alarms and garage door or gate openers, cell phone antennas, commercial broadcasts, airfield radars, etc... In any developed environment there is a huge variety of microwave radiation. Cop traffic radars too. The energy from a microwave oven is nothing compared this background radiation. You would be better off lining up a bunch of cop radars and try to decoy a HARM that way, but you would still fail. HARM and similar missiles look for specific signals loaded into an on board threat library, filtering out the rest. The pilot can use the seeker on the missile to scan an area for emitters, and the missile will classify what it detects, essentially classifying the local electronic order of battle ( Rivet Joint will do this much more accurately and over a much greater area, but often you have to go with what you have on hand ). It can tell the emissions of various radars and the pilot can select what the missile will home on when it is launched.
Active phased array radars will obviously force changes in the DEAD mission, but this is already underway with the inclusion of active radars on the missile itself in AARGM and ground mapping radars on the U-2 and Global Hawk among others. Illuminators will still need to emit a signal out to 50-80 nm, and this is plenty of energy for an AARGM to home on, even if the radar is subsequently shut down. A missile shooter can be located and attacked using the active radar, since the missile launch creates quite a target to home on.
 

Infra_Man99

Banned Idiot
I have news for you, the equipment used in depots to create test signals is not mil-spec ruggedized equipment. It is built more or less onesy-twosy from off the shelf components and used in a lab setting. There isn't much money to be saved with inexpensive components because an awful lot of what goes into them has no cheap commercial counterpart. So what you would have is some notional Serbian lab trying to piece together some devices that simulate a radar signal's characteristics mostly out of components from the radars themselves. You won't find the pieces you need in any catalog or at the local Dick Smith or Radio Shack. These items come from a very limited number of military electronics suppliers. But have fun with your fantasy anyway :)
You genuinely have no feel for how little energy a microwave oven creates compared to a target illumination or search radar. In any developed environment the energy from that microwave will be lost in the signals from building alarms and garage door or gate openers, cell phone antennas, commercial broadcasts, airfield radars, etc... In any developed environment there is a huge variety of microwave radiation. Cop traffic radars too. The energy from a microwave oven is nothing compared this background radiation. You would be better off lining up a bunch of cop radars and try to decoy a HARM that way, but you would still fail. HARM and similar missiles look for specific signals loaded into an on board threat library, filtering out the rest. The pilot can use the seeker on the missile to scan an area for emitters, and the missile will classify what it detects, essentially classifying the local electronic order of battle ( Rivet Joint will do this much more accurately and over a much greater area, but often you have to go with what you have on hand ). It can tell the emissions of various radars and the pilot can select what the missile will home on when it is launched.
Active phased array radars will obviously force changes in the DEAD mission, but this is already underway with the inclusion of active radars on the missile itself in AARGM and ground mapping radars on the U-2 and Global Hawk among others. Illuminators will still need to emit a signal out to 50-80 nm, and this is plenty of energy for an AARGM to home on, even if the radar is subsequently shut down. A missile shooter can be located and attacked using the active radar, since the missile launch creates quite a target to home on.

I have news for you: decoys were successfully used by both the NATO-allied forces and the Serbian-allied forces. Get more info by doing a quick search on the Internet, and you'll find various news sites and specialized sites talking about how cheap, medium cost, and expensive decoys were effective to various degrees during the Kosovo war.

(1)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(2)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Don't overestimate the quality of military specifications, either. A recent news article talked about Iraqis using affordable hardware and software to hack into a few US drones. There are various incidents throughout history of overrated military specified equipment and standards in all nations, including America.

Let me get back on subject by tying this into the thread's title. Does anyone know how well the S-300 ground-to-air defense systems defend against enemy aircraft flying between 10,000 feet and 70,000 feet with jammers, carrying towed decoys, and armed with air-to-ground missiles? From what I (a military fan) have read, the S-300 in this situation requires the help of friendly aircraft to have a good probability of defending against such an enemy aircraft.
 

coolieno99

Junior Member
inflatable SAM decoys:

foq3ci.jpg


25pmp9y.jpg
 

Mindawozas

Just Hatched
Registered Member
One little detail everyone is missing is that the S-300 system is thoroughly understood by the USAF. They have batteries of them at Nellis AFB, including examples of the complete battery including all the radars at the Threat Training Facility, nick named The Petting Zoo. Suppressing them and countering them will not be an insurmountable problem.
You can scan about half way down this web site to see photos from the Petting Zoo.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You're talking about this USAF S-300V copy?
IMG_5107.jpg


watch photos in your posted link Tunguska, gadfy... are mock'ups
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Engineer

Major
A lone SAM system in the face of an entire air force will of course be destroyed easily, no surprise there. If you put a couple of PAC-3 in the middle of no where, PLAAF can destroy them just as easily. That is why you don't depend entirely on SAMs for air defense.

In an actual conflict, the radars of the SAM systems will not be turned on until the very last moment. Detection of enemy aircraft are done by combination of early warning radars and passive detection means. Attempts to suppress friendly radars will be dealt with by ground-base anti-radiation missiles (ie. FT-2000).

As for the microwave oven idea, it doesn't work because microwave oven doesn't operate in military's frequency range. And aside from the power problem that Ambivalent has pointed out, I also doubt the magnetron can produce a pure-enough frequency as a carrier signal. However, the idea of creating a false target is a sound one. The equipments needed to achieve this will no doubt be more sophisticate and expensive than a microwave oven. At the same time however, such a system will not need to deal with the return signal, so it will be much simpler and cheaper than an actual SAM radar.
 
Top