This is a discussion on Russian Air Defenses within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by My2Cents
As for density of heavy SAMs, Baghdad was probably 2nd only to Moscow at the time. ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents
As for density of heavy SAMs, Baghdad was probably 2nd only to Moscow at the time. It was not the number of systems that was the problem, they were deliberately targeted so in order to produce the hole in the coverage. Probably could have had more heavy systems than Moscow and it still would not have made a difference, except in the number of munitions expended.
A combination of density and sophistication. I suspect the F-117 wouldn't have been able to reduce the engagement envelopes of WarPac PVO sufficiently to get past them. Remember stealth is state of affairs produced by reducing the effective engagement envelopes of enemy IADS assets. They're not actually invisible. So a dense enough and capable enough sensor grid would still be able to stop them.
Quote:
The Iraqis had the misfortune of being the first recipients of concentrated use of both cruise missiles and stealth aircraft with smart weapons. The former snuck in under their radar to take out the missile sites, while the later had weapons big enough to take out the command bunkers (which the Tomahawks could not).
I doubt tomahawks would have been able to hit Soviet positions quite as easily. And here's the question, in terms of the number of munitions expended, were there enough tomahawks to achieve a similar effect against WarPac?
Quote:
speculation
The biggest advantage the Soviets had over Iraq would have been strategic depth, so probably the first thing they did was to relocated the main command nodes beyond F-117s limited range. Beyond that increasing the mobility of the local SAM C&C groups and training them for greater independence would help a lot. As would an emphasis on low level defenses for the heavy SAM sites against cruise missiles (note how many sophisticated low altitude systems they fielded after Desert Storm).
They fielded more before then after. After desert storm the USSR was no more, and R&D was greatly hampered. I suspect you're referencing the Pantsyr which started out as a Strela-10 like system for the VDV, and was in no way a response to ODS. Only with the UAE financing changes and continued development of the weapon was ti completed to be something like a 2S6 on steroids. However the Strela-10M, Osa-AKM, Tor, and 2S6 Tunguska all predate ODS. Improvement to the Tor-M1 were made following the NATO campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the Tor began development in 1975, entered service in the 80s, and work on the Tor-M1 was under way by 1989, with it entering service in 1991. Again no connection to ODS.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
To be precise, so there is no confusion. It's not that Russia didn't want to or didn't need to respond to the lessons of ODS at that time. It's that they could not. They are doing so now, in many ways, including increasing the proportion of PVO SV units in line motor-rifles units, and in by introducing complex C4I nodes into motor-rifle and PVO units to allow for better coordination, as well as command redundancy (allowing a MR brigade command post to take over managing an Air-Defense brigade, if their command post is destroyed).
I've got a question concerning the Pancyr: which of the current AA systems is it going to replace? I heard that the Tunguska shall be phased out in the near future, but where is the sense in replacing the newest self-propelled anti aircraft weapon you get when there's plenty of older systems like the Shilka or Tor?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus
I've got a question concerning the Pancyr: which of the current AA systems is it going to replace? I heard that the Tunguska shall be phased out in the near future, but where is the sense in replacing the newest self-propelled anti aircraft weapon you get when there's plenty of older systems like the Shilka or Tor?
Currently the Pantsyr is not replacing anything. It's being inserted into air-defense brigades and regiments, that have S-400 and S-300 units. In the future the Pantsyr might replace the Tunguska, and Shilkas in the PVO of the Land Forces (SV). However this is purely speculation at this point. To the best of my knowledge a new short-range ADS called Morpheus is being developed to replace the Osa and Tor class systems. Tunguska production lines are still running at this time, though I don't know if any are being purchase to replace Shilkas, or if they're just export orders.
Fyi Tor is not an older system, is fairly close to state of the art, especially the M1 and M2 variants.
Here's what you need to understand. There are PVO units part of the Air-Space Defense Troops, and there are PVO units part of the Land Forces. The two use different equipment, and have different purposes. PVO SV (land forces) is meant to protect Motor-Rifle and Tank units on the move, while PVO VKO is meant to control airspace, and coordinate air defense with the VVS (air force). Their job is protection of important military installations, cities, industrial hubs, nuclear facilities, etc.
For those, like me, who had difficulty finding the info on the weapon systems in question. It took me awhile to figure out which system you guys were talking about. Finally found it, I hope. The Pantsir (NATO: SA-22 greyhound)?
This thing is deadly, as is the Grison SA19; utilizing both surface to air missiles AND twin 30mm auto cannon, allowing it to engage at longer ranges than Shilka, and against both medium and low altitude targets. Shilka can only engage close in, low altitude with its 23mm guns. However, the Pantsir (Greyhound) cannot fire its guns while on the move except in the tracked version is what I read. It can fire its missiles though.
I think I saw the same article mentioned by the original poster and it does say that the Pantsir/Greyhound is the planned replacement for the Grison/Tunguska M1 due to increased performance. From the specs, Greyhound is an upgraded version with a big advantage being that it allows missile fire on the move, which Grison cannot do, and it has a longer detection range
@Feanor: with "older" I simply meant "older than the Tunguska" (I didn't konw yet that both systems entered service the same year).
Will all S-400 units be part of the Vozdushno-kosmicheskaya Oborona then?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus
@Feanor: with "older" I simply meant "older than the Tunguska" (I didn't konw yet that both systems entered service the same year).
Will all S-400 units be part of the Vozdushno-kosmicheskaya Oborona then?
Yes. It seems that PVO SV is getting the S-300V4, the first btln of which was delivered this year. Although it is possible that in the future a tracked S-400V will be developed, right now it's not even planned.
Two more battalions of S-400s will be delivered soon and probably be deployed to North-Western Russia. So this spring Russia will have six battalions (=3 regiments) with Triumf missiles in service.
I once heard that in total ten units shall be equipped with the Triumf. Does this refer to ten regiments or ten battalions?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
They will be deployed in Kaliningrad region, where they will replace the last S-200 unit left in Russian service. Supposedly they will be under VMF command, part of Coastal Troops.
Probably both sides are exaggerating they capabilities. Russian air defense did prove them self that are good if they aren't challenged by SEAD...
F 117 is retired after he encounter Neva (SA 3)!
Wasn't sure where to post this announcement of a S400 being deployed near Poland, I was under the impression that S400 wasn't yet operational.
The S-400 has been on combat duty since 2007 when the first unit was deployed near Moscow. A total of 6 btlns have been deployed so far, it seems. Allegedly another 3 btlns are to be deployed this year, though I think this is somewhat optimistic.
Also the best place for this discussion is the Russian Air Force thread, since the S-400 is being deployed to replace the S-300P and PM in service with the VVS. I believe we actually talked about the S-400 deployment in Kaliningrad in that thread.
