A SAM shooting down a SAM

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

tincansailor

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post18 Mar 2017, 19:16

Israeli news reports are indicting an Arrow Missile was used to intercept a Syrian SAM that was engaging Israeli F-16s that had just conducted air strikes in Central Syria.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39302416

Although the report is short on details the implications are striking. This is the first time I've ever heard of a SAM shooting down another SAM. If as the story says the Israeli jets were back over Israeli territory at the time the missiles were fired that might indicate the missiles were long range types, possible S-300s. That the Arrow II could intercept a very high speed missile like the SA-21 at the medium altitudes they would have been flying at to intercept a flight of F-16s is a remarkable achievement.

The Arrow II must be a very formidable system. I wonder if any other system could do the same thing? THAAD, Patriot PAC-3, or the Stunner. If THAAD could do that no wonder the Chinese are so against the U.S. THAAD deployment to S- Korea.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1093
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Mar 2017, 09:49

This from Tyler Rogaway article listed it as an SA-5 / S-200 for some reason:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/84 ... ng-strikes
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3984
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Mar 2017, 15:39

basher54321 wrote:This from Tyler Rogaway article listed it as an SA-5 / S-200 for some reason:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/84 ... ng-strikes


Most likely because he's a f--king idiot.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

marauder2048

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 00:41

PAC-2 is used as a TBM surrogate (Patriot-As-A-Target) for PAC-3 and other interceptors.
Many SAMs have surface-to-surface modes including PAC-2 and for comparison, the
SA-5 is nearly as large as Pershing II.
Attachments
sa5-scaled.jpg
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3984
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 01:46

marauder2048 wrote:PAC-2 is used as a TBM surrogate (Patriot-As-A-Target) for PAC-3 and other interceptors.
Many SAMs have surface-to-surface modes including PAC-2 and for comparison, the
SA-5 is nearly as large as Pershing II.


Did he have any information that actually stated it was an S-200?
"There I was. . ."
Offline

tincansailor

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 01:59

basher54321 wrote:This from Tyler Rogaway article listed it as an SA-5 / S-200 for some reason:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/84 ... ng-strikes


Sounds plausible. It didn't make much sense to me that you would have used an anti-ballistic missile to engage a SAM being fired at a flight of aircraft in between the two missile launch points. Interesting that the SA-5 is a faster missile then the missiles used on the S-300 system. In this situation would the higher speed have made it harder to hit, or was the missile just falling at that point? If it was just falling it might have been an easy target.

The Russians claim the Iskandar Ballistic Missile cannot be intercepted. They say it uses a shallow trajectory, and maneuvers against defensive systems. Several years ago there were reports that Russia deployed Iskandar Batteries to Syria, under Russian not Syrian control. At some point the Arrow III may have to deal with Iskandar, and with more sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.

What chances do the members of the board give the Arrow II & III of defeating these more formidable threats?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3984
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 02:34

tincansailor wrote:
basher54321 wrote:This from Tyler Rogaway article listed it as an SA-5 / S-200 for some reason:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/84 ... ng-strikes


Sounds plausible. It didn't make much sense to me that you would have used an anti-ballistic missile to engage a SAM being fired at a flight of aircraft in between the two missile launch points. Interesting that the SA-5 is a faster missile then the missiles used on the S-300 system. In this situation would the higher speed have made it harder to hit, or was the missile just falling at that point? If it was just falling it might have been an easy target.

The Russians claim the Iskandar Ballistic Missile cannot be intercepted. They say it uses a shallow trajectory, and maneuvers against defensive systems. Several years ago there were reports that Russia deployed Iskandar Batteries to Syria, under Russian not Syrian control. At some point the Arrow III may have to deal with Iskandar, and with more sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.

What chances do the members of the board give the Arrow II & III of defeating these more formidable threats?



PAC-3 can deal with Iskander.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1921
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 07:43

SAM shooting down SAM is not necessarily that difficult. There have been target drones made from obsolete SAMs. MQM-8G Vandal is actually a modified RIM-8 Talos for example. BOMARCs were also converted to target drones. Russia and CHina have done similar conversions from SAMs to target drones. Such drones have been successfully engaged by other SAM systems.

SAMs fly very predictable flight path for the most part and have quite high RCS and thermal signature. So detecting and tracking them is pretty easy although their high speed can make some problems. Of course most SAMs have very high speed initially only and gradually slow down after their rocket motor burns out. Yes, there are some missiles with Ramjets and burn-sustainer motors which can keep their speed up for extended periods of time. Those missiles are usually significantly slower than missiles with rocket motors. SAMs also don't have ECM systems to protect them and they are very fragile targets. I'd say SAMs would be pretty easy targets for opposing SAMs depending on engagement geometry. Of course it usually requires special circumstances for opposing SAM systems to be close enough to engage each other. Israel is so small country geographically and surrounding Arab countries are also not that large. There such engagements could well happen especially as Israel has a lot of very advanced SAM systems and great early warning net.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1528
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 12:30

SA-5 is a real runaway bastard. Unlikely they would use one of these cold war monsters anywhere near commercial airspace. They have a knack for ballistic trajectories that overshoot their untended targets by.... a good fifty to a hundred miles. Active all that time, indiscriminate what it targets.
Offline

hythelday

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post20 Mar 2017, 20:02

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isr ... syrian-sam

“It wasn’t a Scud-class ballistic threat. But from our perspective, it doesn’t matter if it was a SAM. Once it behaved like a ballistic missile weighing tons and with a warhead of hundreds of kilograms, we couldn’t allow it to threaten our cities and towns,” the officer said.


Contrary to criticism leveled over the weekend by former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who suggested that Israel should not have launched Arrow in order to preserve the country’s longstanding policy of ambiguity regarding periodic strike operations in Syria, the senior Israeli Air Force officer said Israeli air defenders didn’t think twice about acting against the approaching threat.


But given the officer’s explanation, one expert here noted that the Syrian-launched SA-5 could have been very old, and thus did not self-destruct as designed.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 889
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 01:39

tincansailor wrote:The Russians claim the Iskandar Ballistic Missile cannot be intercepted. They say it uses a shallow trajectory, and maneuvers against defensive systems.


Yeah, well, like every other short-range ballistic missile.

I wonder if any other system could do the same thing? THAAD, Patriot PAC-3, or the Stunner. If THAAD could do that no wonder the Chinese are so against the U.S. THAAD deployment to S- Korea.


PAC-2/3 has already done this in intercepting Yemeni ballistic missiles made from converted Sa-2 SAMs. No reason this couldn't be done, SAMs aren't maneuvering for most of their flight time.

I suspect this Syrian SAM was probably an Sa-11, since Syria is known to have Sa-11s in the area (and yet they haven't been able to stop numerous Israeli strikes)
Offline

tincansailor

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 05:01

arian wrote:
tincansailor wrote:The Russians claim the Iskandar Ballistic Missile cannot be intercepted. They say it uses a shallow trajectory, and maneuvers against defensive systems.


Yeah, well, like every other short-range ballistic missile.

I wonder if any other system could do the same thing? THAAD, Patriot PAC-3, or the Stunner. If THAAD could do that no wonder the Chinese are so against the U.S. THAAD deployment to S- Korea.


PAC-2/3 has already done this in intercepting Yemeni ballistic missiles made from converted Sa-2 SAMs. No reason this couldn't be done, SAMs aren't maneuvering for most of their flight time.

I suspect this Syrian SAM was probably an Sa-11, since Syria is known to have Sa-11s in the area (and yet they haven't been able to stop numerous Israeli strikes)



Interesting points arian. At first I thought the Arrow had intercepted a SAM trying to shoot down Israeli strike aircraft. That's why I thought it was so amazing. A SAM going ballistic isn't too amazing. Why do you think it's more likely an SA-11 then an SA-5? The SA-5 is longer ranged, so I would think it was more likely to have reached into the West Bank. The story said the Arrow Booster fell into the Jordan valley. That would indicate the SAM flew far beyond Syrian Territory.

I recall a couple of years ago Cuba was caught trying to ship SA-2s to N-Korea that were to be used as ballistic missiles. Patriots can handle that, in fact it seems a waste to use a PAC-3 when the N-Koreans have so many Scuds, and No-dong Missiles. Could the "Iron Dome" defeat a falling SAM? I understand the new Israeli "David's Sling" or as the Americans call it the Stunner is designed to handle these kind of short range ballistic missile threats. Stunner is also supposed to be a lot cheaper then the PAC-3.

With so many cheap ballistic missiles proliferating we need cheap ABMs. Until we get Lasers up and running cheap missiles like a land based Sparrow System might work. I've read about using ground based AMRAAMs for air defense. Could they be up to the job?
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 889
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post28 Mar 2017, 05:49

tincansailor wrote:Interesting points arian. At first I thought the Arrow had intercepted a SAM trying to shoot down Israeli strike aircraft. That's why I thought it was so amazing. A SAM going ballistic isn't too amazing.


I'm guessing that's what it was: intercepting a SAM that was going after an Israeli aircraft, not a ballistic-missile SAM. I just gave the example that SAMs can be intercepted like anything else.

Why do you think it's more likely an SA-11 then an SA-5? The SA-5 is longer ranged, so I would think it was more likely to have reached into the West Bank. The story said the Arrow Booster fell into the Jordan valley. That would indicate the SAM flew far beyond Syrian Territory.


Buk should have the ranges to get into Israeli territory depending on where it was launched, and Syria has Buk systems around Damascus where the strike happened. I doubt any Sa-5s are even operational anymore.
Offline

hythelday

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post28 Mar 2017, 16:36

arian wrote:Buk should have the ranges to get into Israeli territory depending on where it was launched, and Syria has Buk systems around Damascus where the strike happened. I doubt any Sa-5s are even operational anymore.


I posted an article earlier where Israeli officer is said to confirm it was SA-5 that failed to self-destruct after missing target and thus was brought down out of fear of it crasging in populated territory.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/isr ... syrian-sam
Offline

tincansailor

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post29 Mar 2017, 07:55

Interesting feedback on this subject. It seems Israel is able to attack targets in Syria, at will. The SA-11 that"s been so deadly in Ukraine isn't so effective against a first class air force. I don't think any Israel Aircraft have been lost over Syria in many years. In fact I can't remember any losses since 1982. Have there been any? It doesn't encourage anyone to buy Russian SAM Systems.

As for countering short range ballistic missiles what would be the cheapest ABM system on the market today? Could a relatively cheap missile like "Iron Dome" take out Scuds, or old SAMs used in the ballistic mode? It's hard to imagine having an Iron Dome like system defend against hundreds of Katyusha rockets a day. Just how many defensive missiles could even the United States have?

At some point we'll have ground based Lasers, but in the meantime could gun systems defend against Katyusha rocket attacks? I have seen U.S. Army units using Phalanx systems to take out rocket, and mortars rounds, but those were only small scale attacks. It seems offensive capabilities are more economical then defensive systems. Will it take Lasers to tilt the balance to the defense?
Next

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest