Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Russian Air Defenses

Discussion in 'Missiles & WMDs' started by Rimasta, Nov 27, 2011.

Share This Page

  1. Rimasta

    Rimasta Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    As many may have seen the U.S. military tested a hypersonic vehicle designed to be used for strike missions as part of the Global Strike initiative. Shorty after Russian officials claimed that their air defense network was up to the task of successful defense against this threat as well as other ballistic missile threats, stealth aircraft, drones, and cruise missiles. Are Russian air defenses really even close to this level of sophistication against threats that are still in the early development stage? No nation would be stupid enough to initiate a war with the Russian's so why all the posturing on their part? Didn't anyone tell them the cold war is over and we don't need or want another?
     
  2. BlCityfan

    BlCityfan Banned Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Elkridge
    Wow, I found your some of your sentences to be totally immature and foolish. And of course that Russian is making shit up. Russia doesn't have anything to stop a hypersonic attack from either a missile or an unmanned fighter/bomber plane. So there's no need to bitch about what this rushed fool said....
     
  3. Bonza

    Bonza Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Well, yet again you prove you're incapable of retaining any level of maturity when responding to a post with which you disagree. You've been warned about this behaviour before, so I think this is goodbye...
     
  4. NICO

    NICO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    I don't know enough about internal Russian politics but my guess is just that. I think what can also fall in this category is the problem Russia has with ABM missiles based in Poland or Romania. We might be able to station a few ABM missiles to stop an Iranian IRBM but there is just no way those missiles could do more than a small dent on full bore nuclear ICBM strike from Russia on USA. But Russia seems very perturbed by this, I think it is just noise for internal consumption and maybe to be able to get some small concession at hypothetical negotiations.
     
  5. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    The concession that Russia was given was not small at all. The US offered Russia participation in testing of the system, with Russian radars tracking the missile, as proof that the BMD is no threat to the Russian arsenal. One might infer that Russia's tactic of throwing tantrum when it sees something it doesn't like, is working.

    That point aside, given that few people know what a hypersonic weapon will look like, and what kind of capabilities are needed to intercept it, the statement has little concrete value to it. That having been said, when hypersonic weapons enter service, it is quite likely that Almaz will work up the necessary performace for the S-500, or whatever theater-SAM is being used at the time, to handle it.
     
  6. My2Cents

    My2Cents Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems to me that a hypersonic SAM missile might be one of the first items produced when they master the technology. Maybe not though, it appears most missile based guidance technologies (IR and radar) are not compatible with hypersonic designs because of the heat problems.
     
  7. Belesari

    Belesari New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA,TN
    I think alot of russian stuff is for domestic consumption. Like the bear flights there really isn't a whole lot of reason to fly a bomber into Japanese or American airspace however its plays well with the Russian people. Politics.
     
  8. just4me

    just4me New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nigeria
    Colonel

    The Russians are only trying to say we can try the old techniques used during the Soviet erra where in the face of their technological backwardness relative to the west were making empty claim of an equal force with the US. At the wake of operation desert storm they couldn't manage to hide their feelings that their rhetorics ended up giving the west superior technology edge,they were baffled the way western aircraft easily broke through Iraqi air fences which leaders of the dying days of the soviet union said were similiar to Russian's. Another baffling incident was when a German amateur aircraft landed in the Red square. Afterall Gorby in one of his address to the politburo on his perestroika and Glassnost identified the backward trend of the Soviet union technologically to the west(soviet year book 1989/90). How much since the fall of the Soviet Union has Russia advanced? Believe me science and technology in Russia is less advanced than the soviet erra. Are they not still maintaining the old -age traditiion of being unable to send a probe to Mars? What are they claiming?.Putin's dictatorship is worst than Stalinism.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  9. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    You don't need a hypersonic SAM to intercept a hypersonic cruise missile. What you do need is a networked sensor grid, and centralized C4I nodes that can respond to a hypersonic strike.

    It's also training for the pilots. But you are right in the sense that this doesn't do much in terms of foreign policy.
     
  10. PCShogun

    PCShogun New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Russia has had ABM sites around Moscow since the mid 1990's and have kept upgrading it. The current version, A-135, is still active. As its missile component utilizes a nuclear warhead, I am not sure this is a viable defense against a non-nuclear weapon. However, it was designed to reach its intercept ceiling of 30km within 5 seconds of launch to intercept a MIRV warhead screaming back into the atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound. Assuming the resulting EMP destruction was worth it, and how low to the ground the hyper projectile is flying, it could intercept a hyper velocity vehicle if it were within the interceptors launch envelope. It would seem a Pyrrhic victory to me though.

    It is one thing to hit a missile with a missile, but another to hit a bullet with a missile.

    I believe one issue with this weapon is that the initial launch phase is very similar to a ballistic nuclear launch. It can be disturbing to watch this thing launch while you decide if its nuclear or not.
     
  11. alexkvaskov

    alexkvaskov New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Export tech

    It's an abosolute fallacy to bring up Desert Storm as proof of 'inferior' Soviet equipment.

    The tech the Soviets exported to various client nations was usually dumbed down from their USSR-domestic counterparts. Some Iraqi tanks were of locally produced and there was no way the Iraqi airforce could stand up to the much larger and more modern US force.
     
  12. My2Cents

    My2Cents Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, you do not need a hypersonic SAM to intercept a hypersonic cruise missile. But it help as lot.

    The speed and maneuverability of a hypersonic cruise missile can severely restrict the engagement envelope for SAMs as compared to a slower aircraft or a faster, though purely predictable, ballistic missile warhead. Simply put, you have to get a slower missile into position ahead of the a hypersonic cruise missile for any chance of an interception, and with an evasive course the time of flight will limit the distance you can do that at. That could open holes that require more launchers to provide complete coverage.
    While the Soviets dumbed down the systems, the central command doctrinal that they training the users in, which was probably reinforced by Saddam Hussein personal preferences for total control, probably had as much to do with the performance as the tech. When the American stealth fighters took out the central command node in the air ministry building the heavy SAM systems, with long ranges and high altitude capability, were pretty much shut down until the local commanders got up the nerve and reestablished control, by which time most of the battery control centers and launchers were destroyed. After the first night the Coalition aircraft could stay out of range of the most of the remaining SAM systems just by operating at high altitudes.
     
  13. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    Absolutely. However this is why the statement might not be a lie. The Moscow region PVO might well be able to intercept a single hyper-sonic missile. A mass strike is another story. Then again at this point in time all anyone has is prototypes.

    In other words lack of command redundancy, low density of modern systems, and an effective ceiling for most of the systems restricted them. Things absent in Iraq, but quite present in the USSR. I don't think you can claim that the Soviet PVO and VVS would have collapsed as easily as their Iraqi counter-part. More sophisticated systems, more systems, and better training alone would make them a much more difficult target.
     
  14. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    Much ealier. The A-135 was preceded by the A-35.
     
  15. My2Cents

    My2Cents Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not now, back then who knows? I certainly would not have wanted to place a bet either way.

    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.

    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).

    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-117’s 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).
     
  16. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    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.

    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?

    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.
     
  17. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    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).
     
  18. Klaus

    Klaus New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  19. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,073
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    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.
     
  20. PCShogun

    PCShogun New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    0
    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

    KBP 2K22/2K22M/M1 Tunguska SA-19 Grison / 96K6 Pantsir S1 / SA-22 Greyhound SPAAGM / Cамоходный Зенитный Ð*акетно-Пушечный ÐšÐ¾Ð¼Ð¿Ð»ÐµÐºÑ ÐšÐ‘ÐŸ 2К22Ðœ/Ðœ1 ТунгуÑка-Ðœ/Ðœ1 / 96К6 Панцирь-С1

    Pantsir S1 Air Defense System

    Pantsir Pantsyr S1 SA-22 Greyhound air defense missile gun system technical data sheet specification*-*Army Recognition*-*Army Recognition
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2011