S-400 and F-35

[ricnunes]

The waveforms used for Search are different than those used for tracking and providing guidance to a missile. A simple search will not give the resolution required for calculating an intercept. Also searches are not performed as often as pulses are sent to a target under track.

Please, read hornetfinn's last post.
He's a very knowledgeable person about the subject at hand (SAMs, Radars/Electronics, etc...) and for me he's definitely one of the references here in this forum.
If you read his last post you'll know that more precise waveforms used for tracking are only used on the final stages of the missile's flight, this either by the missile's radar itself in ARH case or by the land based S-400 radar in the SARH/TVM cases.
For most of the missile's flight path (inicial launch and most of the flight) the search mode is more then enough to provide the missile a "waypoint" which gets it close enough to the target (before more precise waveforms are to be used).

So in many/most cases the alert of an incoming ARH missile will likely come "too late".

The US has thousands of cruise missiles and has shown a willingness to fire as many are needed. Once the SAM systems are degraded then the more numerous guided weapons can be used. A SAM is useless when it is moving and making it shut down and move is a mission kill and leaves your airbases and other high value target undefended.

And an enemy can have hundreds of strategical targets such as again Factories, HQ/Command&Control Centers, Airbases, certain bridges, etc..., targets of which are more important/strategical than S-400 sites and each of these strategical targets will require dozens of such cruise missiles/weapons in order to be destroyed, so hundreds times dozens gives us thousands.
Sure that using Cruise missiles against an ill equipped enemy such as Libya which not only had few Air-Defense Systems, but these were all outdated and for the most part fixed (not very mobile) then the usage of cruise missile is effective. But not so much against a more powerful and better equipped enemy with systems that have a very good/excellent degree of mobility such as the S-400.
So even the US may not have enough cruise missiles to go after SAM sites (or all of them) with systems such as the S-400, this without putting in jeopardy the usage of such weapons against many of the most strategical targets. Such situation gets even worse when we look into the perspective of any other nation.

[ricnunes]

With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.

Actually I didn't know that TVM would alert an enemy RWR at all.
Regarding TVM, I though it never alerted a RWR since the missile would use the waves emitted by the search radar and bounced back from the target to guide itself towards the target (during the later stages of the missile's flight), this combined of course with data link and INS/GPS guidance.
From what I read the TVM while very good "on paper", it should be quite/very vulnerable to ECM (potentially more so compared to other guidance modes).
I guess I was wrong, thanks for the heads up hornetfinn

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

This TVM term is new, or forgotten, to me. Can I get a quick refresher?

[wrightwing]

This TVM term is new, or forgotten, to me. Can I get a quick refresher?

Track via missile

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Interesting. So a combo of SARH and Command Guidance principles using a two-way datalink is what I gather from Wiki. Thanks wrightwing.

[usnimitz]

S-400 missiles travel at speed of Mach 14 or 17000/kmph. S-400 have tracking range of 600 km and they will hit targets 400 km away.

[usnimitz]

I saw the video where a Pakistan's JF-17 came flying leveled to the ground and then it went straight up like a rocket and disappeared in the skies. That must be Mach 1.4 speed when the JF-17 jet went straight up.

I think this manoeuvre of fighter jets will save them from any missile. But a missile travelling at Mach 10 is a stealth missile. It cannot be seen by any fighter jet pilots.

[steve2267]

Wow... 10 Mach.... 14 Mach... the aerodynamic heating must be immense, not to mention some pretty high Q values.

That's some impressive engineering right there...

[boogieman]

I saw the video where a Pakistan's JF-17 came flying leveled to the ground and then it went straight up like a rocket and disappeared in the skies. That must be Mach 1.4 speed when the JF-17 jet went straight up.

I think this manoeuvre of fighter jets will save them from any missile. But a missile travelling at Mach 10 is a stealth missile. It cannot be seen by any fighter jet pilots.

That's not all - with Russian quantum photonic radars and plasma stealth, truly nothing will be able to touch the VVS. Soon the PAK-DA will be upon us raining down unstoppable hypersonic fury, and Russian S500 batteries will be downing USAF jets as they take off in the continental USA.

[knowan]

S-400 missiles travel at speed of Mach 14 or 17000/kmph.

Mach 14 is the maximum target velocity, not the maximum missile velocity.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... echnology/

It has a maximum altitude of 185 km (115 mi) and maximum target velocity of 4,800 m/s (11,000 mph; Mach 14). The missile’s average flight speed is 1,190 m/s (2,662 mph).

Notably, the intercept range for ballistic missile targets is only 15 km: https://missilethreat.csis.org/russian- ... for-s-400/

Reports indicate the missile’s destruction range is up to 380 km for aerodynamic targets and up to 15 km for ballistic weapons at an altitude ranging from 10 m to 35 km.

That's significantly shorter than the 40 km Sprint ABM, which achieved a velocity of Mach 10.

[usnimitz]

Mach 14 is the maximum target velocity, not the maximum missile velocity.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... echnology/

All big missiles travel at Mach 7 or Mach 8. I was surprised when I read Mach 14

[hornetfinn]

With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.

Actually I didn't know that TVM would alert an enemy RWR at all.
Regarding TVM, I though it never alerted a RWR since the missile would use the waves emitted by the search radar and bounced back from the target to guide itself towards the target (during the later stages of the missile's flight), this combined of course with data link and INS/GPS guidance.
From what I read the TVM while very good "on paper", it should be quite/very vulnerable to ECM (potentially more so compared to other guidance modes).
I guess I was wrong, thanks for the heads up hornetfinn

Thanks ricnunes, this is very interesting discussion.

TVM uses the continuous (or close to continous) transmissions emitted by the engagement radar. Search radars do not work for TVM or SARH as they require continunous or nearly continuous target illumination in the terminal phase. Of course Patriot for example uses a single radar for both search and engagement purposes but on a fixed sector (something like 120 degree sector). Naturally there is usually several batteries with their own radars for wider coverage and mutual support. Also Patriot is getting 360 degree radar coverage with the GaN AESA antenna.

Actually TVM is actually less susceptible to ECM than either SARH or command guidance alone. This is because the ship or ground unit knows what the missile seeker sees and has a lot more computing power than what could be fitted to missile seeker. Basically the seeker just receives the radar signals and sends them back to launching unit. There is not much processing done in the missile itself, but on the launcher which can also do some sensor fusion between engagement radar and missile seeker. In SARH everything is done by the missile seeker alone and in command guidance by the launch unit alone. Of course TVM requires data link between the missile and launcher to work or the missile can't do anything.Modern directional and secure data links are very difficult to jam because they use directional high gain antennas with very low sidelobes. So the jammer would need to be close to line-of-sight between missile and launcing unit engagement radar to have effect on the data link.

Of course nowadays enough computing power can be fitted inside missile seekers which is why ARH is becoming the norm in latest missiles like Patriot PAC-3, Aster missiles or 9M96 variants. I could see also the option of using ARH seeker and TVM, although it would require pretty advanced sensor fusion to work well.

[boogieman]

Of course nowadays enough computing power can be fitted inside missile seekers which is why ARH is becoming the norm in latest missiles like Patriot PAC-3, Aster missiles or 9M96 variants. I could see also the option of using ARH seeker and TVM, although it would require pretty advanced sensor fusion to work well

I think ARH also lends itself to cooperative engagement as well. One of the drawbacks I see with Patriot at the moment is that its long range missile - the PAC2 GEM-T - lacks an active seeker. This means it is pretty heavily tied to the battery it originates from in a given engagement and AFAIK cannot be guided to impact using target information from a third party. Replace the GEM-T with a weapon more like SM6 and suddenly you could be using target data coming from virtually any source via IBCS. This would, in my view, make the Patriot much more relevant on the modern battlefield.

[hornetfinn]

I think active radar guidance would be a nice improvement over TVM, especially against air breathing targets. Against ballistic missiles TVM might have some advantages still, although many current low altitude ABM missiles have active radar seekers. SM-6 missile (or likely a derivative because of differing environment) would be a good way to go. Launchers would likely need to be upgraded because of somewhat larger missile. But it's still close enough IMO, that it should work. It would have enormous reach against all targets while PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE would work fine against shorter range targets. I'd probably add something like the SkyCepto, AMRAAM or possibly AMRAAM-ER (ESSM body) because of their lower cost.

[ricnunes]

@hornetfinn,

Thanks for the heads up and explanation.
From what I get, TVM (BTW, sorry sprstdlyscottsmn for not replying straight away, only now I was able to visit the forum) and SARH are very similar in basic principles with the diference that processing and therefore "decision making" such as maneuvering (and detonation as well, I gather) is done solely on the missile in the case of SARH (and therefore no Data-link is required) while in the TVM case this is done by the launcher/station (in which Data-link is a must - here the missile works as a sort of a "relay station").

For example the radar must be emitting in the same way independently if it's guiding a SARH or a TVM missile.
As such, now I get why incoming TVM missiles will/should also appear on RWRs (at least in the missile's final stage of its flight).