F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 21:48

Since we're talking about SAMs, I thought this would be an interesting article for this topic...

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/bac ... -exercise/

The US and Israel have completed a unique joint missile defense exercise seen as crucial to defending the Jewish state against Iran. Not only did the US deploy its high-end THAAD system to Israel for the first time, but the two nations integrated the American weapon into the Israeli missile defense network and tested the combined US-Israeli defense in multiple scenarios.
The [THAAD] system was integrated as an equivalent of the Israeli Arrow,” said the Israeli missile defense commander, Brig Gen. Ran Kochav.

Arrow (Hetz in Hebrew) is the mid-altitude interceptor in Israel’s layered missile defense. Built by IAI and Boeing, with key components built in Mississippi, Arrow works together with the famous Iron Dome — built by Rafael to operate at low altitude, primarily against unguided rockets, of which it’s intercepted hundreds since 2014 — and the very-high-altitude David’s Sling, built by Rafael and Raytheon. By plugging THAAD into the system in Arrow’s mid-altitude role, the American operators were able to train alongside Iron Dome and David’s Sling as well.
+++
Arrow-3 in Alaska

This summer, it’ll be the Americans’ turn to play host, with the Israelis bringing the upgraded Arrow-3 to the Kodiak range in Alaska for a test against live targets simulating the performance of the most advanced Iranian ballistic missiles. The wide open spaces of Alaska allow a much fuller test of Arrow’s capabilities than the relatively narrow territory of Israel.

The Alaska test had been originally planned for 2018, but it was postponed to allow further work on the Arrow-3 upgrade. While Arrow-2, the variant currently in service, uses a proximity fuse to detonate near the incoming warhead, Arrow-3 is designed as a hit-to-kill interceptor, with a kill vehicle detaching from the missile body to hit the target directly and destroy it by force of impact instead of an explosion. Hit-to-kill technology is considered a more reliable way to defeat an incoming missile than shrapnel. Some of the explosive-warhead Patriots used in the 1991 Gulf War, for example, didn’t really destroy incoming Iraqi Scuds so much as scatter them over the landscape in potentially lethal pieces. But scoring a direct hit on a small target at supersonic speeds requires highly precise sensors and an extremely agile interceptor. To achieve that, Arrow-3 will not only be more maneuverable than Arrow-2 but much smaller, lighter, and capable of intercepting the target outside the atmosphere in space.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2692
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 23:14

gc wrote:These ultra long range SAMs from Russia claims engagement ranges that occurs only under ideal conditions that hardly exist in operation settings, such as engaging a slow big bomber flying at high altitudes directly at the SAM battery without adequate EW protection. Modern 4.5gen fighters with reduced RCS, advanced ECM and expendible countermeasures, utilising terrain masking can greatly reduce the engagement distances of S-400s.


Independently if you're right or not or if the operational/effective range of those very long range missiles (the 40N6) is close to 400km or quite less than that one thing seems clear to IMO:
- The range of these missiles (40N6) should be much higher than current/other missiles used by S-300/400 and this is for the most part due to the fact that the 40N6 missile has an Active-Radar seeker which grants S-400 systems a longer effective engagement range.

So I have little doubts that 40N6 missiles will make the S-400 a much deadly threat against 4.5 gen fighter aircraft and having Active-Radar seekers should enable these systems the ability to engage non-line-of-sight targets (which should limit terrain masking tactics).

Now of course the "million dollar question" is like swiss mentioned:
- Is the 40N6 missile already in full operational service or not?


gc wrote:What the S-400 lacks is an elevated sensor which can generate weapons quality track and an advanced datalink to share such engagement data. And once its radar is taken out, the entire system becomes useless. And don’t bother with the fantasy that Pantsirs can take down saturating cruise missile attacks against the S-400’s radar.


Well from what I know the S-400 can and does receive datalink targets from systems such and specially like the Nebo-M VHF AESA radar system which allows long range target detection.

Now what I don't know is if the Nebo-M can generate tracks with sufficient precision/accuracy to guide an Active-Radar guided missiles (such as the 40N6) to its target?
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post19 Apr 2019, 23:54

hornetfinn wrote:
zero-one wrote:Question, can RF exercises replicate advanced SAM threats like the S-400?
I often hear Russian fans unimpressed by F-22 and F-35s scoring mass kills in RF.


Replicating any kind of ground based threat system is pretty easy nowadays with LVC. It doesn't matter if there are actual physical systems or not. Actually LVC systems allow better realism than using real world systems as real missiles aren't fired in any case and there are many restrictions in using the systems in exercises as they would be used in real war. For example real S-400 batteries take a lot of manpower and support to operate. That would be difficult to realize even in large exercises like RF.



Sorry Hornetfinn, what does mean LVC?
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 00:48

Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 610
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 03:43

swiss wrote:
hythelday wrote:The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.


Thank you for your Info.

I was thinking more from a technical point of view.


Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Before reading further, one needs to understand that both in Soviet Union and in modern Russia, two distinct branches of the armed forces existed: The Army Air Defence, a sub-branch of the Land Forces, and The State Air Defence Forces, as a separate service. Of course, they existed under different names at a times, but you get the idea. It is also important to know that in addition to Air Force and Naval Aviation Soviet Union also had Air Defence Air Force (Aviatsija PVO). They used various interceptors, notably Foxbat and Foxhound, but also unique types such as Su-15 Flagon and Yak-25 Flashlight.

The "State AD" missile systems and interceptors are now part of VKS, while Army maintains their own mobile SAMs.

Now, "State AD" missile systems were more concerned with ballistic missiles, strategic bombers or high flying spy planes. They employed all soviet static and/or relocatable (not self propelled, but still mobile) SAMs: S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild), S-75 Dvina/Desna/Volkhov/Volga (SA-2 Guideline), S-125 Neva/Pechora (SA-3 Goa), S-200 Angara/Vega/Dubna (SA-5 Gammon)

The "Army AD" were of course more interested in self propelled systems, they demanded their systems should be able to keep up with the armor divisions pushing into Western Europe, be amphibious (at least some) and have good performance against low flying targets.

That is why they had in the 1960-70s:
2K11 Krug (SA-4 Ganef) - a sort of "strategic" defence
2K12 Kub, 2K12E Kvadrat, E for Eksport (SA-6 Gainful) - division level protection
9K31 Strela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin) - battalion level IR SAM
2A6 Shilka - battalion level AAA.

In the 1970s they have designed newer systems to replace aging:
9K37 Buk (SA-11 Gadfly) as an evolution of 2K12 Kub (SA-6 Gainful). The later systems could rival and probably exceed SA-4 performance.
9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher), as an upgrade to Strela-1. SA-13 used 9M37 missile, slightly better than the previous 9M31. I also think it could launch more.
An entirely new system was 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko), which is a division level radar guided SHORAD, with command guidance 9M33 missile.

In the 1980s they have designed the following:
2K22 Tunguska (SA-19 Grison) - a combined AAA/ command guidance missile SHORAD system. It uses 30mm guns and 9M311 two-stage missile. According to what I read on the russian side of the Internet, Tunguska was approved for production 1) because it is superior to Shilka as a AAA system in every regard 2) even though it has inferior missile range performance to Osa, it was still approved supposedly because Osa system had too slow of a reaction time to defeat "pop-up" helicopter threats, apparently Tunguska is a faster system. Tunguska can be considered battalion level ADS.
9K330 Tor (SA-15 Gauntlent) - division level radar guided SHORAD. It is important to understand that Tor is not a Tunguska replacement, it's a higher level system. Very interesting system, it's a mobile VLS.
Last, but not the least, the S-300 family.

S-300 was developed for several services at once, and was meant to replace several systems at once too.
S-300 consists of S-300V, S-300P and S-300F.
The "F" was meant for the navy, and probably means "Flotskaya" (Fleet's version), it arms such fabulous ships as Slava and Kirov cruisers, also all but the first Stereguschy corvettes. I will not write about navy version further.
The "P" was meant for the State AD. It could mean "PVO" (Air Defence) or Perehvatchik (Interceptor), I don't really know.
The "V" was meant for the Army AD. It probably means "Vojskovaja" (The Troop's version).
Interestingly enough, it looks like for the S-300 the targets of interest reversed - State AD was looking for a system that was versatile enough to hit fighters and low fliers, while Army AD was looking for theater ballistic missile defence. According to the russian sources, plans for initial maximum unification across three systems yielded only modest results, with many subsystems, including radars and missiles, were different.

The first of the S-300 to become active was the S-300PT, T for transportable, because it wasn't self-propelled but rather carried on a flat bed, accepted into service in 1975 (some say 1978) and the TEL looked like this:
Image

Self-propelled variant, called S-300PS (S for "Samohodnyi" - self-propelled), as we love and know it, was accepted into service in 1982. Later S-300PT was brought to S-300PS standard, becoming S-300PT-1. Is it confusing enough yet?

S-300P Guidance is provided by the 5N63S command post, which has 30N6 FLAP LID I/J band search and track radar (on the right) and can be linked with 5N66 CLAM SHELL low flier I band search and track radar. Also known in export variant as 76N6 (on the left in the picture):
Image

Note that both radars can be raised 25 or 39 meters high using special mast (40V6M/40V6MD). As far as I understand both radars can be used to engage targets, becasue 1) they are accurate enough for 5V55K command guidance missile 2) 5V55R uses track-via-missile mode without target illumination radar. The command post can also be linked with 64N6 TOMBSTONE S band early warning radar:
Image

And 36D6 TIN SHIELD E band early warning radar, which can also be raised on a mast:
Image

The 5V55 missiles are single stage, solid propellant. Range <100 km.

This system was later (1993) developed into S-300PM (export PMU1). It has a "new C&C system" 83M6 although I am not sure which radars exactly got upgraded, because it still uses 30N6. The new system also uses 48N6 and 48N6E missile, single stage, solid fuel, up to 150 km against certain targets. It is reported to be able to use 5V55 missiles also.

The S-300PMU2 was presented just 4 years later, in 1997. The main difference was an improved 48N6E2 missile, with range up to 200 km and certain improvements against TBM type of targets. This system also introduces 96L6E CHEESE BOARD radar, which apparently is a replacement for CLAM SHELL and TIN SHIELD and can be used with older systems too, not sure about the other way around )but probably yes). Seems like PMU2 can only use 48N6 family of missiles.

Up next is S-300V. As I said it was a system for the Land Forces, so the first major difference is that it is mostly mounted on a tracked chassis derived from the T-80. That should give you the idea how Soviet Army planned to operate this system.

The baseline S-300V is quite different from the S-300P. It used different radars and different missiles for different targets. The radars are 9S15M Obzor-3/BILL BOARD:
Image

BILL BOARD is F band search and track radar. The primary purpose of this radar is to track what the Russians call "aerodynamic" targets, meaning aircraft and cruise missiles/glide weapons.

The other radar is 9S19 Imbir/HIGH SCREEN:
Image

HIGH SCREEN is I/J band search and track radar, designed primarily to pick up ballistic missiles.

There is also a 9S32/GRILL PAN radar. I may not have understood how it fits into the system exactly, but from what I gather it is used to track individual targets, then sends 3D coordinates of the targets to the illuminator mounted on the TEL which in turn illuminates the target for the missile.
Image

The missiles were 9M83 and 9M82. Both missiles are two stage, solid fuel, INS + semi-active in the terminal phase missiles. 9M83 had a smaller booster and was meant to engage "aerodynamic" targets, 9M82 was larger, meant to defeat IRBMs, Russian sources consistently mention Pershing missiles. From what I can tell, the current version for export is S-300VM (aka Antei-2500) and domestic S-300V4. They are largely the same, but upgraded to be able to destroy targets 200 km and up to 400 km respectively.

The illuminator is mounted in the front part of the TEL. One illuminator can guide two missiles, apparently (although I suspect that only towards the same target). 9M83s are smaller (4 tubes), 9M82s are larger (2 tubes)Image

From what I gather the S-400 is further upgrade path of the S-300PM system, with more missiles and more universal radars.

It consists of 91N6 BIG BIRD S band surveillance radar (upgrade of 64N6 TOMBSTONE), 96L6 CHEESE BOARD (right) and multiple 92N6 GRAVE STONE I/J band engagement radars(left):
Image



S-400 is compatible with older 48N6 missiles, and has a family of 9M96 missiles, which are INS+datalink+ ARH in the final phase missiles, short range up to 120 km. Supposedly they can be quad-packed into one launch tube, but I have not seen them shoot it like that. Of course, it also has the 400 km 40N6 active homer.

In conclusion, S-300P and S-300V were quite different systems, but they were designed to solve similar tasks. S-400 is "ultimate S-300P", with modern radars and active homing missiles.

It is also worth noting that those systems come with a variety of C&C systems of their own, capable of connecting multiple systems of the same and different kind, as well as auxiliary volume search radars. That's why it's called Integrated ADS. Soviets have been doing it since the 70s at least, so I expect their systems to be quite resilient.

US also has purchased S-300P(?) from Belarus and S-300V directly from Russia. There were news recently of Ukranians delivering their most recent upgrade of TIN SHIELD to the US. I am sure other systems, such as Nebo, are physically persent, as well as ELINT and TECHINT from S-300/400 in foreign service, including 3 NATO countries.
Last edited by hythelday on 20 Apr 2019, 12:47, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 09:36

Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed

In comparison, the SM-6 is a 1500 kg missile with a range somewhere between 240 to 460 km and only Mach 3.5 speed. The SM-6 is essentially a SM-2ER Block IV with a new guidance section; both missiles are two-stage, with a Mk 72 booster attached to the primary Mk 104 boost-sustain motor.

The 5V55 and 48N6 missiles are single stage; they don't appear to have boosters (40N6 is unknown), and given their high speed it seems likely their rocket motors are boost only.

The lower speed sustained velocity of the SM-2ER/SM-6 is more energy efficient than a high velocity boost and coast of the Russian missiles, which combined with the efficiency gains from being 2-stage missiles, it is likely the SM-2ER/6 have a greater effective range than the 5V55 and 48N6, but too little is known about the 40N6 to make any conclusion.

I also question if the 40N6 could possibly hope to engage a manoeuvring target at those velocities; the g-forces would be so high the manoeuvrability of the missile must be rather low.
It is likely the 40N6's ability to engage targets at shorter range is fairly limited as a result, which is probably one of the reasons Russia developed the 9M96 missiles.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 11:20

zerion wrote:Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021


Thanks. :thumb:

I am going to read it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24408
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 11:36

There is always MORE: search.php?keywords=Live%2BVirtual%2BConstructive&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

Using ADVANCED SEARCH (top of page) with the search text string Live+Virtual+Constructive then search the F-35 sub forum with ALL AVAILABLE text one will get the URL above with some 112 hits on eight pages.
Attachments
F-16netAdvancedSearch.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 11:53

hythelday wrote:
swiss wrote:
hythelday wrote:The biggest difference is that S-400 is build in Russia, whilst S-300 was a system built in Soviet Union, with many sub-components coming from all over the place, most notably Ukraine. That's why Ukraine can maintain and produce various new/upgraded subsystems for their SA-10s.

The 400 km missile is a nice bonus.


Thank you for your Info.

I was thinking more from a technical point of view.


Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Before reading further, one needs to understand that both in Soviet Union and in modern Russia, two distinct branches of the armed forces existed: The Army Air Defence, a sub-branch of the Land Forces, and The State Air Defence Forces, as a separate service. Of course, they existed under different names at a times, but you get the idea. It is also important to know that in addition to Air Force and Naval Aviation Soviet Union also had Air Defence Air Force (Aviatsija PVO). They used various interceptors, notably Foxbat and Foxhound, but also unique types such as Su-15 Flagon and Yak-25 Flashlight.

(...)


Amazing resume!!
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 11:55

knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed

In comparison, the SM-6 is a 1500 kg missile with a range somewhere between 240 to 460 km and only Mach 3.5 speed. The SM-6 is essentially a SM-2ER Block IV with a new guidance section; both missiles are two-stage, with a Mk 72 booster attached to the primary Mk 104 boost-sustain motor.

The 5V55 and 48N6 missiles are single stage; they don't appear to have boosters (40N6 is unknown), and given their high speed it seems likely their rocket motors are boost only.

The lower speed sustained velocity of the SM-2ER/SM-6 is more energy efficient than a high velocity boost and coast of the Russian missiles, which combined with the efficiency gains from being 2-stage missiles, it is likely the SM-2ER/6 have a greater effective range than the 5V55 and 48N6, but too little is known about the 40N6 to make any conclusion.

I also question if the 40N6 could possibly hope to engage a manoeuvring target at those velocities; the g-forces would be so high the manoeuvrability of the missile must be rather low.
It is likely the 40N6's ability to engage targets at shorter range is fairly limited as a result, which is probably one of the reasons Russia developed the 9M96 missiles.


But, this range of the 40N6 around 380 kms, i do not think is taking Mach 12 speed in all range....
Offline

knowan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 14:44

falcon.16 wrote:But, this range of the 40N6 around 380 kms, i do not think is taking Mach 12 speed in all range....


The 40N6 would probably be dropping to Mach 1 by 380 km.

Mach 12 is very likely the peak speed, achieved when the rocket motor cuts out. After rocket burnout the missile coasts on available kinetic energy.
Mach 3.5 is likely the peak speed of the SM-2ER/SM-6 too, but that speed would be achieved when the boost segment of the second-stage is expended, and the sustain segment then maintains that speed for a cruise flight until burnout.

The SM-2ER/SM-6 would have longer flight times, but beyond a certain point they would likely have more available energy than the 48N6 missile and possibly the 40N6 too.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5565
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 15:12

knowan wrote:Interesting thing about the S-300P and S-400 missiles is their high velocities compared to similar sized Western missiles like the SM-2ER and SM-6.

5V55 missiles are around 1500 kg with a 75-90 km range and Mach 4.96 speed
48N6 missiles are around 1800 kg with a 150-250 km range and Mach 5.83 speed
40N6 missile is supposed to be around 1900 kg with a 380 range and Mach 12 speed


What's your source for these speeds and ranges?
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2692
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 16:24

@hythelday,

Excellent and very informative post about the S-300/400 systems (and their families/sub-variants). Thanks for sharing it :thumb:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5565
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 17:33

hythelday wrote:S-400 is compatible with older 48N6 missiles, and has a family of 9M96 missiles, which are INS+datalink+ ARH in the final phase missiles, short range up to 120 km. Supposedly they can be quad-packed into one launch tube, but I have not seen them shoot it like that.




image_big_7604.jpg


Also used in the S-350 system:

1920px-Air_Defence_System_'Vityaz'_(english_'Knight').JPG
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post20 Apr 2019, 20:05

hythelday wrote:Dang, you made me look. Thanks - I am now a little more knowledgeable myself. I never really dug into the precise differences of the systems, always regarding them as upgrades.

Thank you for the awesome resume!

:applause:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests