Forum: Air Power

Once again, the Israeli Air Force has (with a little help from its US allies) made short work out of the air defenses of an Arab state. It has been reported by Aviation Week that during the Sept. 6 air strike against a suspected nuclear facility, Israeli jets managed to render Syria's newest Russian made hi tech air defenses useless. Two new systems were reportedly thwarted by the Israelis, one being the SA-15. Apparently Russian experts are headed to Syria to figure out why their new toys did not work and how the Israeli's non-stealthy jets managed to vector in undetected and unharmed. Laughing

The SA-15 is reportedly $25 million a copy and the Russian published literature gushes about its ability to shoot down PGMs, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, UFOs, Santa Claus etc. Noteworthy is the fact that Iran has recently purchased many of these systems to much fanfare from the press.

It's nice to know that some of the new network attack/EW tech the US and Israelis are working on was successfully tested, er employed. It's a sure thing that the Syrians are not too happy about the performance of their latest Russian kit. At least they look good rolling down the street at the obligatory 3rd world dictator military parade.

Link
http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/ ... cility.php

F-16.net Sponsor

Yeah but the SA-15 as a threat: It is a contempt of engagement kind of weapon. An F-15 or F-16 could beat one of these easy with weapons IDF already has that can be launched outside it's engagement zone. JDAM, SPICE etc.

If it isn't a big area SAM it can get beat and beat bad. Want to shoot at PGMs? Great, eventually it will have to reload. Laughing

I am not with the theory that the strike was done with some new Buck Rogers gear. I would like to see some more confirmation. Some of the writing on this topic out there is like: "OMG they got through Syrian IADS". I don't see it as such a big accomplishment given what IDF has on hand. I think there is some, I say "some" electronic attack hype out there in various sales efforts by the guys in suits. IDF already has enough SEAD/DEAD methods that would make the Syrian IADS nothing more than an annoyance. The mail will get through.

Was some new Buck Rogers gear used? Maybe but the job would have gotten done with current stuff they have in the inventory. The proof in the pudding would be to see how they will do someday against S-300, S-400 family stuff.

hmm, i don't think it went all Israels way.

Reason I say this, there were Drop tanks discovered with Israeli markings just inside the Turkish border.... now why would an aircraft drop its tanks unless it was engaged or in trouble?

Andy

When IAF destroyed osirak nuclear reactor they advertised the hole operation very much. Now that they have made a similar operation why they have not release not a single photo with the destroyed targets?

Elp - If Aviation Week is to be believed, then there is some possibilty that the some form of techniques / tech from the Suter program were used. But that is not really my point anyway. In fact if no Buck Rogers tech was used, it just goes to show that time proven techniques such as tactics and traditional EW were effective enough to defeat the SA-15. At any rate I am surprised at your cynicism here - the USAF has invested heavily in developing air defense network exploitation techniques and tech. Do you really think they would invest so heavily if it was all vaporware?

boff - Why would drop tanks signify anything bad happened? If the tanks are empty going into an engagement isn't it prudent to drop them? Less drag, less weight, less RCS etc.

nomad - This is a politically sensitive issue for the Israelis. The article even states that the US considered the strike premature. It is probably politics more than anything...but who knows. The bottom line is all information to date says that the air defense net was successfully penetrated...whether or not the facility was successfully destroyed hasn't really been published to my knowledge.

biffbutkus wrote:

boff - Why would drop tanks signify anything bad happened? If the tanks are empty going into an engagement isn't it prudent to drop them? Less drag, less weight, less RCS etc.

And cost.....

In combat, tanks aren't dropped as soon as they are empty; that was the doctrine back in the 40/50's when they were made of paper.They are now only usually dropped if you are having to turn hard and/or avoid something. They are also dropped if an aircraft has a problem.

Andy

"The proof in the pudding would be to see how they will do someday against S-300, S-400 family stuff."

Or have done. Very Happy

biffbutkus wrote:

Elp - If Aviation Week is to be believed, then there is some possibilty that the some form of techniques / tech from the Suter program were used. But that is not really my point anyway. In fact if no Buck Rogers tech was used, it just goes to show that time proven techniques such as tactics and traditional EW were effective enough to defeat the SA-15. At any rate I am surprised at your cynicism here - the USAF has invested heavily in developing air defense network exploitation techniques and tech. Do you really think they would invest so heavily if it was all vaporware?
.

Well again I have no idea. If Suter can beat up that network I would say it isn't too much of an accomplishment and certainly nothing it didn't do on a Nevada test range. Then of course you have to look at the customer that bought that SA-15. Assuming SA-15 was anywhere near the scene of the crime, I was under the understanding that the hot show room floor setup when getting an S-300 series piece of hardware was to pick up the bling to go with it. That bling being SA-15. I thought the two were supposed to work together where SA-15 takes down any leakers going for the big daddy. Having SA-15s only and some other legacy crapware SAMs from a bygone era against an IDF with all their current stuff is just asking to get killed or... just sit there and watch a target get hit anyway. SA-15 looks impressive in the videos. But it is range and altitude limited. Then of course just like the Sheffield and the Stark, you have to have the gear turned on for it to work. What if the attack happened at a time where the gear wasn't even turned on or at battle stations? Laughing

Very possible. I mean... "victory for Suter" could just be knowing when the crew goes to the chow hall or is goofing off. Laughing

elp wrote:

biffbutkus wrote:

Elp - If Aviation Week is to be believed, then there is some possibilty that the some form of techniques / tech from the Suter program were used. But that is not really my point anyway. In fact if no Buck Rogers tech was used, it just goes to show that time proven techniques such as tactics and traditional EW were effective enough to defeat the SA-15. At any rate I am surprised at your cynicism here - the USAF has invested heavily in developing air defense network exploitation techniques and tech. Do you really think they would invest so heavily if it was all vaporware?
.

Well again I have no idea. If Suter can beat up that network I would say it isn't too much of an accomplishment and certainly nothing it didn't do on a Nevada test range. Then of course you have to look at the customer that bought that SA-15. Assuming SA-15 was anywhere near the scene of the crime, I was under the understanding that the hot show room floor setup when getting an S-300 series piece of hardware was to pick up the bling to go with it. That bling being SA-15. I thought the two were supposed to work together where SA-15 takes down any leakers going for the big daddy. Having SA-15s only and some other legacy crapware SAMs from a bygone era against an IDF with all their current stuff is just asking to get killed or... just sit there and watch a target get hit anyway. SA-15 looks impressive in the videos. But it is range and altitude limited. Then of course just like the Sheffield and the Stark, you have to have the gear turned on for it to work. What if the attack happened at a time where the gear wasn't even turned on or at battle stations? Laughing

Very possible. I mean... "victory for Suter" could just be knowing when the crew goes to the chow hall or is goofing off. Laughing

I did call the SA-15 a parade float.... Laughing

SAMS alone won't protect high value assets...you need a decent Air Force as well....so like I alluded to in my first post, these new Russian SAMS being peddled to 3rd world dictatorships and theocracies make better showpieces for state-controlled TV and May Day celebrations than anything.

Forum: Air Power

Syria's 25 million dollar parade floats