IADS and SEAD discussion

STURM

Well-Known Member
yet aircrafts were still shot down and even a stealth one.
Thousands of sorties were flown and hundreds of SAMs were fired; yet only 2 aircraft were actually downed. A few others suffered minor damage.

On paper NATO had everything going for it but in really a number of factors; namely ROEs, terrain, weather, certain tactics employed by the Serbs and others; ensued the SEAD/DEAD effort was extremely challenging and problematic.

“Air War Over Kosovo” (Lambeth) goes into great detail the problems faced by NATO, including the inability to rapidly reprogramme EW pods and training issues Ultimately the damage caused by NATO airpower and the inability of his AD to stop it: played (along with other factors) played a major part in Milosevic agreeing to NATO’s terms.

Events in Kosovo was in sharp contrast to the campaign to down Iraq’s IADS. Expected I suppose given that the Iraqis were less skilful/proficient compared to the Serbs; the terrain was different; the French reportedly provided info on the KARI network which they designed and thar it was at end of the Cold War when Allied crews were at their peak.
 
Last edited:

Terran

Active Member
A 6x6/4x4 IFV. Anything smaller would not be able to adequately accommodate the turret mounted gun, radar, FLIR, etc.



I was thinking of something like the British ADAD; to detect IR signatures of targets. A jammer would also be needed but I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be mounted on the same platform.



Sorry; what I actually meant was something along the lines of a M61 or a 2A38M.



It's primary purpose is to deal with UASs but it would also have a ability to deal with rotary and fixed wings targets which come within its engagement envelope.



Indeed but in this case it would be the main or only means of dealing with 'micro' UASs or even slighty larger ones whose low heat signatures would make them hard for IR homing MANPADs to deal with.
You’d be surprised how small they make remote weapons stations these days. I mean the RWS on a UGV can pack a pretty good sized weapon these days. The Marines fitted a Radar and hammer system on a Gulf cart on steroids. Really small X band radars are also available for such a job and should be part of the package. If it’s a micro swarm I would rather explosive power vs rate of fire. So the automatic cannon. Bigger the better. 35mm would do.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
You’d be surprised how small they make remote weapons stations these days. I mean the RWS on a UGV
Granted but for what I have in mind would a small platform be able to accommodate a 35mm cannon, radar, FLIR, jammer, etc?

If it’s a micro swarm I would rather explosive power vs rate of fire. So the automatic cannon. Bigger the better. 35mm would do.
Even assuming the micro UAS “swarm” has been detected in time; a platoon of say 4 vehicles would need the ability to rapidly engage the “swarm”. Bigger would indeed be better; more range and bang. At closer ranges and at lower altitudes however; wouldn’t smaller calibre rounds (12.7mm/20mm) still be sufficient to bring down micro UASs as well as slightly larger ones?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
An interesting addendum to the discussion of proliferation of the latest Russian GBAD. Here's some footage from the 27th Motor-Rifles, one of the better brigades of Land Forces overall, and the second unit to receive the T-90M. Note the ZU-23-2s mounted on the MT-LB chassis. Based on previous footage I have of the unit (granted somewhat dated) it had BTR-80s for its main troop transport, likely upgraded to BTR-82s at some point, and some ZU-23-2s in service. It's highly likely that these neatly designed turrets for the ZU-23-2 (normally mounted without any such protection on roofs of MT-LBs and BTR-Ds) are the AAA battery of the air defense btln. Though from the manner in which they are firing its unclear whether the targets are low-flying aerial or long-distance ground (the use of them on the same range with the T-90Ms suggests the latter). The unit should also have a Strela-10 battery (again my info is old but no Strela-10 replacement currently exists so unless they're operating on a modified TO&E....), some MANPADS. There are unconfirmed claims on Russian wikipedia that it has a battery of Tunguskas but the same wikipedia lists it as having only one howitzer btln, a recon company (instead of recon btln), and the presence of ZU-23-2s is confirmed from as far back as 2011 (along with a small quantity of MT-LBs) as it is here. Maybe it has two air defense btlns, one with a standard mix of 2S6, Strela-10, and MANPADS, and one riding entirely in MT-LBs with ZU-23-2s. Maybe it has a standard organization, and footage of its second air defense btln (it should have Osa or Tor) is just scarce, and the ZU-23-2s are the AAA battery in the missile-artillery air defense btln.

To translate this into a BTG, this would likely mean ~31 BTR-82s, and 10 T-90Ms, with associated infantry, as well as either a howitzer btln or a mixed arty group of 2 howitzer/1 Grad batteries, would get air defense to the tune of 1 battery of Osa/Tor, and either a platoon mix of MANPADS, ZU-23-2s, and Strela-10, or one battery of either of them. Obviously there would be additional air defense operating independently (S-400s rgts/btlns, with Pantsyrs, or Land Forces air defense S-300V (V4s?) and Buks (M3?)) but on the whole, not exactly impressive.

 

STURM

Well-Known Member
not exactly impressive.
For a unit of that size; an organic AA element in the form of a Osa/Tor battery, MANPADs and ZUs seems - to me at least - very impressive. The low to medium level AD needs are pretty much sorted out. An indicator how seriously the Russians - like the Soviets before - take air defence.

On the ZUs; obviously the main function is AD but I’m curious whether doctrine still calls for them to be used for the direct fire role against ground targets should a need arise.
 
Last edited:

Terran

Active Member
Granted but for what I have in mind would a small platform be able to accommodate a 35mm cannon, radar, FLIR, jammer, etc?



Even assuming the micro UAS “swarm” has been detected in time; a platoon of say 4 vehicles would need the ability to rapidly engage the “swarm”. Bigger would indeed be better; more range and bang. At closer ranges and at lower altitudes however; wouldn’t smaller calibre rounds (12.7mm/20mm) still be sufficient to bring down micro UASs as well as slightly larger ones?
Probably not. An IFV or heavy to medium truck chassis could. That’s if we are sticking with that large a caliber.
if we are just focused on UAS to a degree yes. Problem is military micro UAS are likely flying in an evasive pattern. Civil micro UAS would be easy they would be flying in hover or straight lines but a military model is likely to be trying to avoid just that kind of threat. It’s not impossible to hit it’s just more complicated. The reason for a bigger shell (and not bullet) is explosive power. A 12.7mm BMG or Soviet will only kill what it can hit. Vs a micro or even mini UAS if you get a good hit it’s a mission kill but miss it’s a waste. 20mm shell brings in HE payload. A 20mm shell on impact even if grazing then detonated will have a far higher kill potential vs a micro or mini class. Fragmentation effects vs a small very light drone are going to be more effective, but as the target increase less so. What would kill a hummingbird would annoy a Turkey vulture or in this case an attack chopper or CAS plane.
Scale the shells up and again potential goes up as well as possible targets. The Mantis Air defense system 35mm AHEAD round detonates dispersing 150 tungsten projectiles, that would likely decimate a swarm and mess up any attack chopper yet built. The amount and mass of fragments as well as their density and velocity would be an area effect. Scrapping multiple targets in close proximity. It would also be more effective vs larger drone types. One burst doing more damage to single targets akin to multiple shots of a smaller payload projectiles.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
For a unit of that size; an organic AA element in the form of a Osa/Tor battery, MANPADs and ZUs seems - to me at least - very impressive. The low to medium level AD needs are pretty much sorted out. An indicator how seriously the Russians - like the Soviets before - take air defence.
I was referring more to the specific equipment in question. There was a lengthy discussion of Tor-M2s with quad-packed mini-missiles, Pantsyrs with the same, advanced EW, defeating hypersonics... and the reality is often unguided 23mm AAA unstabilized on the back of an armored tractor. I agree, by comparison to most forces, Russia has a lot of organic GBAD. But even with the GPV-2020, most units still use 70s/80s era systems whose capabilities are quite limited against things like loitering munitions, or LO PGMs. We will see how GPV-2027 goes.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Excerpts from an article: about Russian AD systems which I found to be very interesting.

“As opposed to the all-volunteer U.S. military, which can design weapons systems with deceptively simple user interfaces that contain a complicated range of options that it heavily invests in training soldiers on, Soviet air defense systems have “a load of buttons and switches on the consoles,” says Bronk, but most do one thing only. The aim was to allow them to train a large number of technically competent people en masse to an adequate level of proficiency. They require more training to get a basic level of operator competence on, but once you have that operator competence, they’re quite straightforward systems,” says Bronk. If you haven’t learned the manual, “it’s going to be bewildering”


It’s generally believed that a factor which enabled the disaster with the Ukrainian airliner was due to the Iranian crew having a poor level of training. Same reason why Russian AD systems have performed badly in Syria and Libya; together with the fact that they were not employed as they were originally designed to.

The question which comes to mind is whether Western systems (the way they are designed); compared to Russian ones; are inherently easier for newly trained crews to gain a certain level of proficiency.

What I also found interesting is that Tor has “a telescope system that was added to Soviet SAM batteries to allow operators to take aim visually if their guidance radar is jammed. Essentially a TV camera with a large telephoto lens, if one of the soldiers had used it, he would have been able to see the tell-tale blinking navigation lights of the 737”.

Jernas has something similar; a EO sight which enables targets to be visually acquired/observed many KM away.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #49
The question which comes to mind is whether Western systems (the way they are designed); compared to Russian ones; are inherently easier for newly trained crews to gain a certain level of proficiency.
Not really. An idiot trained on both systems would still be an idiot. And a dedicated person who understands his duty, and the responsibility which he holds, will become proficient on both systems.

Neither is fool-proof. The two different schools will teach like minded people to become proficient in different ways.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Not really. An idiot trained on both systems would still be an idiot.
An “idiot” or rather someone which a lower education level or with a less technical background might find it easier to gain sine level of proficiency if the system he was using has a friendlier better designed interface and had better ergonomics.

Neither is fool-proof. The two different schools will teach like minded people to become proficient in different ways.
It’s not a question of whether anything’s fool proof but the fact that certain systems - because of various factors -may be inherently easier or faster for personnel to gain some level of proficiency compared to other systems.

A lot of Soviet gear was intended to be operated by conscripts with little or no technical/engineering background or experience in everyday life; as such a lot of gear was at intended to be as uncomplicated as possible; whilst still being able to do the job. Conscripts with a better education level and with sone technical/engineering background or experience were generally given jobs which were more demanding.

Going back to my original query and the context it was made in; we can only speculate if say: a S-300 requires more time for crews to be trained; compared to ASTER 30.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #51
An “idiot” or rather someone which a lower education level or with a less technical background might find it easier to gain sine level of proficiency if the system he was using has a friendlier better designed interface and had better ergonomics.
My intent was not to sound offensive, rather to show 2 polar cases.
These systems are in their nature very complex. Sure you can learn what every button does and be somewhat proficient in it in a war setting, but it takes a lot more than that to be a truly effective crewman that can also operate it in peacetime, where the environment is busier and much more sensitive to errors.
An effective crew is one that knows both how to go through every procedure, and how to maneuver through and between procedures to get faster results.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Would I be correct in saying that “missile approach warning systems” as the designation implies; provides the pilot of the targeted aircraft as to the direction/approach the incoming missile is approaching from and that without a “MAWS” the only means of knowing which direction the missile was approaching from would be visually?

Second question; RWRs provide an indication that an aircraft has been detected and fired on by a SARH missile and its radar and FCS. What device alerts an aircraft it has been targeted by a IR homing missile?
 

Terran

Active Member
Second question; RWRs provide an indication that an aircraft has been detected and fired on by a SARH missile and its radar and FCS. What device alerts an aircraft it has been targeted by a IR homing missile?
You answered your second question with your first, the MAWS. Operating in one of three flavors Pulse Doppler, IR or UV. It seeks to detect an incoming missile targeted to the aircraft. If said missile is launched without a radar ping detected by the RWR then its a safe bet its a heat seeker.
 

tequilashooter

New Member
Challenging this.
What's your source for this? The IDF, to my knowledge, has never given an official version on this, and the very use of Delilah missiles is scarcely mentioned, if at all.
US sources: Israeli F-16s fired Delilah cruise missiles over Syria from Lebanese air space. F-35s joined second wave - DEBKAfile

"Damascus is said to have countered the attack with Russian Pantsir-S2 and S-200 SAM air defense weapons. These highly credible sources also disclose that the Israeli attack was aimed at Syrian military sites – not Iranian and Hizballah targets as earlier reported in Israel and Damascus. The Israeli government and military chiefs had apparently decided, say the US sources, to take advantage of the chaos generated by President Donald Trump’s decision to pull US troops out of Syria and Ankara’s threat of a Turkish army thrust across the Euphrates. Their purpose was to disable Syrian military sites where Iranian and Hizballah combat assets were quartered.
After the F-16 jets failed to connect to their targets, the IDF sent the F-35 stealth planes over in a second wave."
Debka is a Jewish news agency BTW this was the same day that Russians claimed 14 out of 16 were intercepted.

Also with regards to the TB2 Vs Pantsir image, anyone have an agreement on it?

pantsir drones.jpg
pantsir s-1 claim.JPG
pantsir s-1 claim 1.JPG More or less with pantsir having like twice the interceptor missile speed and range(warhead looks smaller than the previous pantsir missile and twice the radar range is what they are claiming for the pantsir-SM
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
Debka is a Jewish news agency BTW this was the same day that Russians claimed 14 out of 16 were intercepted.
So American news agencies are now Christian, and Russian are also Christian?
Debka is an independent news site, nothing official. They quote unnamed American sources, but refuse to link to their sources, and refuse to provide proof.
There are always sites that like throwing in their speculations because they have no reputation to maintain, and that's what Debka does.
It's also worth mentioning that at least in Israel, Debka is considered a very unreliable source of news, and is hardly ever mentioned.

Moreover, the IAF has shown footage of a Delilah striking a Pantsir, but there is no mention even in your source (Debka) of any interception rates.

So once again, your claim that 14 of 16 were intercepted, or that any were intercepted, was challenged and un-proven. Same for your claim that GBU-53 were used.
 

Vivendi

Member
Regarding the reliability of Debka, this old article is from 2007, however it's still the same people running Debka, so probably still relevant:
Mainstream media frequently write-off Debka -- the word refers to an Arab folk dance -- as a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists. But the recent episode marked the second time in recent months that the site caused a stir in more mainstream circles.

In June, following what quickly proved to be a false report in Debka, The Associated Press and Reuters filed news stories incorrectly suggesting that Turkish forces were now operating inside northern Iraq.

Critics claim the site, which often relies on anonymous sources, relies on information from parties with an agenda.

"DEBKAfile has frequently promulgated materials put out by rightist elements of the Republican Party, whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman wrote.

Bergman said Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable, and that the New York alert suggested U.S. authorities are still reeling from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

But Shamis and Shalem, both of whom worked for more than 20 years covering foreign policy and intelligence issues for the London-based Economist, have said that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to be true.
Israeli Web site Debka.com at center of New York ‘dirty bomb’ tip | World | Jewish Journal (archive.org)
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #58
US Army seeks an enduring IFPC system, whereas Iron Dome is currently acquired as an interim system.

Current options are the Iron Dome in an American variant, and an AIM-9X based solution.
Demands are for capability against cruise missiles and unmanned systems, characterized by low RCS, unpredictable movements, varying speeds, and low level of flight, against substantial clutter.

A secondary capability is C-RAM. Secondary, but highly prioritized. The Army prioritizes capability over schedule, and schedule over cost.

This honestly seems almost unfair when the Iron Dome is not only tested, but combat proven against all the above mentioned threats with the sole exception of cruise missiles, against which it is "only" field tested. It is also in use by the Army, and optimized for low cost.

We'll have to see what Dynetics has to offer to offset these major disadvantages.
 

Terran

Active Member
US Army seeks an enduring IFPC system, whereas Iron Dome is currently acquired as an interim system.

Current options are the Iron Dome in an American variant, and an AIM-9X based solution.
Demands are for capability against cruise missiles and unmanned systems, characterized by low RCS, unpredictable movements, varying speeds, and low level of flight, against substantial clutter.

A secondary capability is C-RAM. Secondary, but highly prioritized. The Army prioritizes capability over schedule, and schedule over cost.

This honestly seems almost unfair when the Iron Dome is not only tested, but combat proven against all the above mentioned threats with the sole exception of cruise missiles, against which it is "only" field tested. It is also in use by the Army, and optimized for low cost.

We'll have to see what Dynetics has to offer to offset these major disadvantages.
The Army has wanted a fully integrated system for the job. Thus far Iron Dome hasn’t allowed that. That’s not a strike against the system we know it works. I mean last week was a massive acid test proving it.
The Army adopted it and the Stryker Shorad as an interim. However the Army has to shop options for a system that better meets the doctrinal requirements. Just as the IDF has documented need of supply chain and manufacturing security for its systems the US DOD does to.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #60
The Army has wanted a fully integrated system for the job. Thus far Iron Dome hasn’t allowed that. That’s not a strike against the system we know it works. I mean last week was a massive acid test proving it.
The Army adopted it and the Stryker Shorad as an interim. However the Army has to shop options for a system that better meets the doctrinal requirements. Just as the IDF has documented need of supply chain and manufacturing security for its systems the US DOD does to.
The Iron Dome uses source code that is highly classified and belongs to the IDF and Rafael. If the IDF does not give permission, Rafael cannot transfer it.

However, measures are being taken to make the source code more accessible to the US, and perhaps through Raytheon.
So, it's a matter of time.
 
Top