US SAM Systems

fretburner

Banned Member
Why is it that the Russian SAMs seems to always have better range then the US SAMs, like the Patriot System? I guess this is once again a difference in doctrine?

I had a discussion with a friend from way back and I remember him saying something like, "I think it's because the US would almost always going to be on the attack rather than defense... and so confident of getting air superiority".

Even if this is remotely true, then it still puts the US allies at a disadvantage, if they can't get SAMs which will have the range of say an S300?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not much stops US allies from getting the S-300. Admittedly it would be a politically controversial deal, but I don't see Russia refusing to sell it to say France, or Germany. Greece got them from Cyprus after all, and they even had Russian specialists to assist in training and integration. Turkey expressed interest in the S-400 and this was met rather warmly by Russia.

Additionally, the USAF is capable of controlling the skies in a manner that the VVS can only dream of. Consequently the US can get away with few and very limited SAMs, where as Russia is forced to develop sohpisticated and highly mobile SAM systems to provide tactical cover from the air.
 

GI-Gizmo

New Member
Geo-politics and doctrine equals different SAM system specs...

I have always pondered why there are such differences in SAM systems from Russia versus the US. I have to guess that alot of different things have made this a reality. Doctrine, strategy, tactics, weaponary, technology, geography, political, financial and national pride all among them. The sheer number of SAM systems produced by the Soviet bloc and current Russian Federation is astonishing when compared to the relatively few systems the West has fielded.
From the SA-2 Guideline to the S-400 Triumf there has been all different types, sizes and approaches to SAM systems produced by the Soviet bloc. I would have to guess that the main few reasons for this is that Russia is a huge land area which is surrounded by potentially hostile nations, while the US is large also, it is protected by two giant Oceans to either side and the only real threat from aircraft comes from the North over the Arctic from Russia. The US doctrine and weaponary sees them gaining air superiority in a conflict and they are usually seen as the side on the offense rather than the defense. The Communist system allowed for development of multiple systems at once, little or no accountability and no worries about financial or political constraints or problems, while the Democratic system witnessed public industry developing one dependable system with a budget to follow and a doctrine to adhere to which limited SAM systems importance in our battle theory. We instead depended on fighter aircraft, electronic warfare and other means to protect our airspace and interests. As for the much better range of Russian systems, I would say that had alot to do with countering our air launched guided weapons which could be launched far from the target area and also because of their geographic situation and the massive amount of airspace they have to defend. Snap to reality, to nowadays and look at the record of SAM systems. The Patriot has a much envied record and the Naval Standard series is extremely capable, even shooting a satellite out of space. When MEADS comes online it will be a true 21st Century SAM system. The Patriot has a range of 100mi, the Standard 90mi, the S-300 120mi, the S-400 250mi, even the older SA-5/S-200 has a range of 190mi. The Russians had to worry about U-2, SR-71 and other spy aircraft overflying their territory and alot of the reasons for building systems with long ranges, high speeds and high altitudes is due to that. As an off-shoot of SAM systems, Anti-Ballisitc Missile systems are the next step in air defense, now giving us the ability to defend against the previously untouchable threat posed by ballistic missiles. The US is the undisputed leader in the this field. The Patriot PAC-3 has a 100% success rate during OIF against short and medium range ballistic missiles. Currently the Patriot PAC-2/3, THAAD, Aegis SM-2/3 and limited GMD forces make up missile defense assets. In the future NCADE, kinetic energy interceptor, API ABM technologies, MEADS ABM component, HELLADS, possible YAL airborne laser technology mature comeback and HEMPAM-DL high energy multi-phase anti-missile defense laser technologies could become major systems.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Back during the Cold War the USSR had very advanced ABM systems, including the currently operational A-135 (recently modernized) strategic ABM, and the S-300V. All modern Russian and Soviet tac-SAMs have some ABM capabilities. This includes the Tor-M1/M2, Buk/Buk-M1/M2, Tunguska, and Pantsyr. It's the numbers deployed, and thorough levels of layered GBAD that are the marked difference between the US and USSR/Russia in this area.
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
Maybe US, (and i am taking a shoot in the dark here with a .22) is going to begin relying on Air Laser technology, I am just saying, maybe this is the next big thing
 

fretburner

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
I guess my buddy was pretty much spot on then. The US will doesn't really need longer range SAMs because they can pretty get air dominance in just about any conflict they go to.

I did not really think about the geography of US vs Russia with the latter being surrounded by not very friendly neighbors. I guess it makes a lot of sense to have these SAM sites around the borders where potential conflicts would erupt.

But then again, wouldn't it be nice to have a superior air force and have longer range SAMs? Is it really that expensive to get these SAMs a longer range? What's the range of MEADS and how much more expensive is it versus say a Patriot System? DID reported the US Army doesn't want it anymore though.



Feanor, what's VVS? A lot of acronyms in these boards got me stumped.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
The US uses its Patriot SAMs more for ballistic missiles defense than for shooting down fighters. Thats what the F-15, -16, -18, -22 and -35 are for.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
VVS is the Russian Airforce and literally is Voenno-Vozsdushniye Voyska, Military-Aerial Forces. Current Russian SAM-sites are not around the borders. They cluster heavily around Moscow and St. Peters and otherwise are few in number and far between.

IMINT & Analysis: Worldwide SAM Site Overview



EDIT: As you can see I went and downloaded the SAM inventory, and then took a screenshot of the active Russian sam sites. I'll mess around with it some more and see if I can figure out how to make it show the range rings.

EDIT2: Here are the range rings as promised. You can see many times multiple redundance around the capital cities, but giant holes in the network around the border regions, especially in the Far East, and Siberia. Blue is radar and EW range, red and all other colors are SAM engagement ranges.

EDIT3: Here's an interesting article on the subject. http://geimint.blogspot.com/search/label/S-400

When I get home I'll do the same sort of range circles and deployed cites map for USA SAM sites, for contrast. Also please keep in mind this does not include any tactical systems as they are 1) typically not datalinked, and 2) very mobile.
 
Last edited:

Belesari

New Member
I think it has to do with the way we handle war. We arent the type to site and build permanent fortifications or something that can have multiple uses.

Why use a SAM when you can use a F-16 or F-15 which can do many different missions at many different points besides AntiAir.

Really it comes down to cost. Far easier to set your country as a fortress if your going to use fixed or semi mobile weapons systems like arty and AA.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
A combination of SAMs and fighters, in my opinion, will for the same cost provide better overall IADS. Not to mention SAM systems can provide a permanent presence that fighter jets can't. There's also the question of numbers. You can get many more SAMs then fighter jets.

EDIT: US SAM sites (all 5 of them :D ) and European NATO SAM sites. Note this doesn't include inactive sites, or mobile SAMs. It also doesn't include other GBAD such as radars or EW units.
 
Last edited:

Belesari

New Member
A combination of SAMs and fighters, in my opinion, will for the same cost provide better overall IADS. Not to mention SAM systems can provide a permanent presence that fighter jets can't. There's also the question of numbers. You can get many more SAMs then fighter jets.

EDIT: US SAM sites (all 5 of them :D ) and European NATO SAM sites. Note this doesn't include inactive sites, or mobile SAMs. It also doesn't include other GBAD such as radars or EW units.
Yes but i can send those fighters/bombers and EW planes to the target area FAR, FAR faster.
Its like i said our force is built for mobility and the best use of resources.

When your not using those sames all they can do is sit there. A F18 can do well pretty much anything. Thats why its awesome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes but i can send those fighters/bombers and EW planes to the target area FAR, FAR faster.
Its like i said our force is built for mobility and the best use of resources.

When your not using those sames all they can do is sit there. A F18 can do well pretty much anything. Thats why its awesome.
Immature and inappropriate. Last comment edited.

It's a question of doctrine. What if I (like most countries in the world) don't need to send my planes anywhere? What if I'm concerned with my immediate region, and my own defense?

A SAM is always in use. It's use is it's very presence in a given area because it adds another search radar (or a few in the case of more advanced systems), as well as extending the engagement envelope of your IADS. A SAM also doesn't need to be sent to a target area. It's already at it's target area. Not to mention it allows you to project your engagement envelope into hostile airspace without having to establish a physical presence there. (look at China and Taiwan)
 

Belesari

New Member
Immature and inappropriate. Last comment edited.

It's a question of doctrine. What if I (like most countries in the world) don't need to send my planes anywhere? What if I'm concerned with my immediate region, and my own defense?

A SAM is always in use. It's use is it's very presence in a given area because it adds another search radar (or a few in the case of more advanced systems), as well as extending the engagement envelope of your IADS. A SAM also doesn't need to be sent to a target area. It's already at it's target area. Not to mention it allows you to project your engagement envelope into hostile airspace without having to establish a physical presence there. (look at China and Taiwan)
The comment was ment as a joke but okay......

Im not really disputing you. For a power that doesnt really want to do much or cant do much outside of its region or with limited man power and $$$ sams are great its just they dont work so well for us. However we are kinda big into anti missile systems so.
 

fromzg

New Member
The missile range is not the only important element in evaluating effectiveness of SAM system. It is true that common logic tells you that by increasing the range of the missile you create larger kill zone, but what you can do in this kill zone is as important as its size. The number of simultaneous targets you can engage by the system, reaction time, average time to kill the target from the moment you engage it and kill ratio are just some of the things which shows you how those extra miles translates to the increased value of the system.

Of course flying the combat mission is not as simple as flying from point A to point B, so it is hard to compare the systems just based on the numbers you can find for each system. This numbers are quite often just optimal parameters that can be achieved by the system when used in favorable conditions, and it is for sure that such numbers doesn't tell you anything about how will people behind the system handle the real combat situation. It also doesn't tell you anything on the operational readiness of the system in peace or war time.

It is also important to understand that when you build your own SAM system like US, you will not compare its range against the opponents SAM systems. SAM system needs to respond to the threats that enemy air force can present to your territory or your armed forces deployed world-wide, so you have to range it to cope with such threats, their stand-off attack capabilities and tactics in general.

Under the old Soviet doctrine they have created numerous SAM systems with overlapped kill zones, under assumption that such approach will result in the environment where you can't render all systems totally useless, at least not in one go. Also, Soviet in general had a tendency to increase the weapon effectiveness by using more crude approach like making them bigger, faster or by increasing the range. While this sometimes resulted in increased combat potential, sometimes the value of such gains were highly questionable.

US on other hand never really faced the imminent danger of mass scale Soviet AirForce attack against the US soil, so development of SAM systems where never high on their agenda. It is different with US Navy, which front line deployment required effective protection against mass scale attack. However even the navy deployed the fighters as outer defense shield, while missile systems were kept as inner shield to cope with those enemy forces that would breach the outer perimeter.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The comment was ment as a joke but okay......

Im not really disputing you. For a power that doesnt really want to do much or cant do much outside of its region or with limited man power and $$$ sams are great its just they dont work so well for us. However we are kinda big into anti missile systems so.
That kind of power is what most of the world comprises of. So while I understand the dissmissive attitude, in terms of weapon development you have to realize that the needs of the US and the needs of much of the rest of the world are not the same. Hence why SAM systems are effective and definetly have their place in most of the worlds armed forces.
 

Belesari

New Member
That kind of power is what most of the world comprises of. So while I understand the dissmissive attitude, in terms of weapon development you have to realize that the needs of the US and the needs of much of the rest of the world are not the same. Hence why SAM systems are effective and definetly have their place in most of the worlds armed forces.
True, but as far as what i believe what was being wondered (im sure im probably wrong) was why the US seems to have so few SAM systems.

Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
True, but as far as what i believe what was being wondered (im sure im probably wrong) was why the US seems to have so few SAM systems.

Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels.

Absolutely. A more interesting dynamic is the reduction in US SAM systems since the end of the Cold War.
 

fretburner

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
VVS is the Russian Airforce and literally is Voenno-Vozsdushniye Voyska, Military-Aerial Forces.
Thanks!

An off-topic question though: Are you Russian? Or someone who reads/writes Russian?

IMINT & Analysis: Worldwide SAM Site Overview



EDIT: As you can see I went and downloaded the SAM inventory, and then took a screenshot of the active Russian sam sites. I'll mess around with it some more and see if I can figure out how to make it show the range rings.

EDIT2: Here are the range rings as promised. You can see many times multiple redundance around the capital cities, but giant holes in the network around the border regions, especially in the Far East, and Siberia. Blue is radar and EW range, red and all other colors are SAM engagement ranges.

EDIT3: Here's an interesting article on the subject. IMINT & Analysis: S-400

When I get home I'll do the same sort of range circles and deployed cites map for USA SAM sites, for contrast. Also please keep in mind this does not include any tactical systems as they are 1) typically not datalinked, and 2) very mobile.
Very interesting pictures. I have to find time to read that blog though.

I guess putting up SAM sites around Washington DC, NYC, LA and Chicago would not make economic sense for the US eh? And that they'd rather buy more aircraft than develop longer-range SAMs, or even just purchase a few more Patriot Systems?
 

fretburner

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Which accually we have quit a few there just burried inside of Destroyers, Cruisers and other Naval vessels.
This makes a lot of sense. I guess the Navy's SM missiles + land BMD + Patriots would be the US's "answer" to the S300/S400.

Too bad though that it seems the US's allies will have to look elsewhere to buy their SAMs in the absence of Aegis warships and equivalent.
 
Top