Israel Pays for Additional F-35s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1533
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 05:52

The cannon of Pantsir is not very accurate
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 449
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 07:40

eloise wrote:The cannon of Pantsir is not very accurate


Oh yes, that's the video I was referencing a couple of posts back. Lack of proxy fuzed munitions also shows. Good luck "shooting down JDAMs" with that.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 10:14

hythelday wrote:Quite telling that the "most intelligent" SAM system is supposed to intercept AGM-62 Walleye. The two SAMs that veered wildly off course either means that 1) not so resilient against EA 2) "high level of automation" does not mean crews of SAA "qualification" can operate this kind of weapon 3) EO fire control channel is sh*t, can be jammed or was not made available to the export customers.


Thank you for those videos, very interesting. I think I'm going to follow their Twitter feed a lot more from now on... :wink:

Looking at those missile launches, I'm not sure there is necessarily a serious problem with the Pantsir system in this engagement. Israelis might've launched a volley of weapons like Delilahs on them and simply overwhelmed the system. Those missiles might go for other missiles coming in and it simply has not enough time and capability to shoot every one of them down before it is toast. Besides, those missiles or bombs are small and have low RCS. They are not easy to detect, track and engage successfully no matter what the manufacturer says.

However it's equally possible that this Pantsir system was decoyed by EA/EW or just plain old physical decoys. When the radar screen lights up with multiple incoming targets, the crew or automated system is definitely going to engage the most threatening ASAP as there is no way of telling which are decoys and which are real weapons. Even fake targets created by EA/EW system either needs to be declared as such using EO system if radar system can't distinguish it from real targets. That in turn takes a lot of precious time during which the real weapons are getting a lot closer or they can use their precious weapons to engage nonexisting targets.

All in all, it's not easy at all. As a former ADA person, I have always laughed when somebody tells that Pantsir or other SHORAD system is just going to shoot down all the bombs and missiles coming their way. That's very unlikely to happen with modern weapons which are small, plentiful and have very low signatures. Maybe when they have laser guns...
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1739
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 10:56

hornetfinn wrote:Israelis might've launched a volley of weapons like Delilahs on them and simply overwhelmed the system. Those missiles might go for other missiles coming in and it simply has not enough time and capability to shoot every one of them down before it is toast. Besides, those missiles or bombs are small and have low RCS. They are not easy to detect, track and engage successfully no matter what the manufacturer says.


I'm not sure if you're (also) referring to a Delilah on the part above which I put on bold. But in case you are I just want to add that I don't think that the Delilah has a such low RCS specially when compared to many other weapons. This is because (and if I'm not mistaken) the Delilah started its life as a decoy which was later adapted as a cruise missile and you can only reduce the RCS of something to a certain amount which is not much to start with, specially reducing the RCS of a thing which wasn't designed from the start to have a low RCS in mind.
And this is definitely not the first time that I watched a Pantsir being destroyed by something which seems to be a Delilah, as for example it can be watched below:




hornetfinn wrote:All in all, it's not easy at all. As a former ADA person, I have always laughed when somebody tells that Pantsir or other SHORAD system is just going to shoot down all the bombs and missiles coming their way. That's very unlikely to happen with modern weapons which are small, plentiful and have very low signatures. Maybe when they have laser guns...


Absolutely, I fully agree!

Actually that's the history of Air Defense Systems which haven't changed much since the beginning:
- Lots of stuff must be shot from the ground (bullets, missiles, you name it) in order to shot down a single aerial target (aircraft, missiles, etc...).
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 12:12

The first (active) SAM launcher can't be visually identified, but it is likely a Pantsir firing its 57E6 missiles, as those have a 1.5 second booster burnout time, which matches the video.
The missiles don't have any propulsion in the second stage, which also matches lack of rocket trails after booster burnout.

There is a rocket trail at the start of the video, indicating another SAM failed to hit the incoming missile (which was probably a Deliah).
Given the Deliah has a Mach 0.85 dive speed, and it took 21 seconds to impact the SAM launcher site, it was ~6000 meters away at the start of the video, ~3500 meters at the time of the final SAM launch, and ~1500 meters when another missile destroyed the SAM launcher.

I'm guessing the reason for no hits being scored out of 3 SAMs is electronics warfare jamming the fire control radar, forcing the crew to resort to visual command guidance backup.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4894
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 14:45

I can't help but wonder how things might have panned out had they had TOR instead of Pantsir.
"There I was. . ."
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1739
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 15:03

sferrin wrote:I can't help but wonder how things might have panned out had they had TOR instead of Pantsir.


Isn't the Pantsir an updated TOR?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 15:31

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Israelis might've launched a volley of weapons like Delilahs on them and simply overwhelmed the system. Those missiles might go for other missiles coming in and it simply has not enough time and capability to shoot every one of them down before it is toast. Besides, those missiles or bombs are small and have low RCS. They are not easy to detect, track and engage successfully no matter what the manufacturer says.


I'm not sure if you're (also) referring to a Delilah on the part above which I put on bold. But in case you are I just want to add that I don't think that the Delilah has a such low RCS specially when compared to many other weapons. This is because (and if I'm not mistaken) the Delilah started its life as a decoy which was later adapted as a cruise missile and you can only reduce the RCS of something to a certain amount which is not much to start with, specially reducing the RCS of a thing which wasn't designed from the start to have a low RCS in mind.


I meant that modern weapons used to kill AD systems usually have much lower RCS and thermal signature than "normal" targets like pre-5th gen fighters and helicopters. Especially so when considering the engagement profile as those weapons only present small frontal profile to engaged AD system. I doubt modern Delilahs have that large RCS. I bet when they were designed to be used as decoys, Israelis used radar reflectors inside the missile body to match RCS of mimicked targets like F-16 or F-15. It might not be really stealthy missile by modern standards, but I'd bet it has so low RCS that detection range is rather short. Later missiles and bombs probably have even lower signatures and are very difficult to successfully engage especially when launched in volleys and combined with EA/EW support.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2627
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 15:37

ricnunes wrote:
sferrin wrote:I can't help but wonder how things might have panned out had they had TOR instead of Pantsir.


Isn't the Pantsir an updated TOR?


Not really. It's more like an updated version of 2S6 Tunguska. But anyhow, I doubt it would've fared much better.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 449
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 21:20

So here's another update, and quite a juicy one.

There's this company, called ImageSat International. It's an Israeli sattelite imaging and data analysis business. I don't know if they are a front for IDF military intel, or just a private business well integrated with the military (it's Israel, after all), but they post a lot of info regarding Syria, especially geolocation and aftermath of airstrikes by "unknown aircraft from Lebanese airspace". They even have a "Syrian archive" section on their website.

Anyhow, they have posted this image on twitter recently:
Image

Source: https://twitter.com/ImageSatIntl/status ... 2737303553

And this video with geolocation/nice blend of PGM FOV and Sat picture animations: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/10 ... .mp4?tag=6

Source: https://twitter.com/ImageSatIntl/status ... 3833580549

Note that they have marked... JY-27 VHF "counterstealth" 3D surveillance radar, which according to APA (I know :devil: ) is Russia's "Nebo" Chinese spin-off and according to some other sources "capable of detecting stealth fighters such as F-22 from up to 500 km away".

First of all, I did not know that SAA had such a hardware available. Second... I think it was destroyed also.

To recap: SAA had the "holy trinity" of stealth-killing AD systems: Russian-supplied super long range S-300 under Syrian command that potentially was supported by Russian operated S-400 ESM assets, Syrian SA-22 for short range defense and "destruction of PGMs" and also apparently VHF counterstealth radars that are so good that can cue weapons on F-22s and F-35s. I am tempted to say that the red team has to go back to the drawing board or at least field the S-500 ASAP, but then again it's SAA we are talking about, they were lousy soldiers even in the best of times, let alone in 2019.
Online
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1739
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 22:17

hornetfinn wrote:I doubt modern Delilahs have that large RCS. I bet when they were designed to be used as decoys, Israelis used radar reflectors inside the missile body to match RCS of mimicked targets like F-16 or F-15.


Yes, I grant that it's quite possible that you're right about the Delilah here.

hornetfinn wrote:It might not be really stealthy missile by modern standards, but I'd bet it has so low RCS that detection range is rather short. Later missiles and bombs probably have even lower signatures and are very difficult to successfully engage especially when launched in volleys and combined with EA/EW support.


Agree and that was basically my main point earlier. Independently of what the Delilah RCS really is, other (and more modern) weapons such as for example the SDB should have quite lower RCS (compared to the Delilah) which IMO means that if it's already very hard for an air defense system such as the Pantsir to shot down a Delilah than imagine against (more modern) weapons such as again the SDB, or the JSOW, etc...


hornetfinn wrote:Not really. It's more like an updated version of 2S6 Tunguska. But anyhow, I doubt it would've fared much better.


Oh, I see. For some reason it crossed my mind that the Pantsir was some sort of an updated TOR but it is not. I stand corrected. Thanks for the reply hornetfinn :thumb:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7608
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post27 Jan 2019, 14:03

Interesting paint scheme.
Attachments
IDF.PNG
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post27 Jan 2019, 16:56

popcorn wrote:Interesting paint scheme.


I'm guessing that is CGI.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1951
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post27 Jan 2019, 17:09

Source?

An illustration? Or image of actual aircraft?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22100
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Jan 2019, 20:36

CGI: viewtopic.php?f=63&t=54122 ADIR F-35i Fantasy Paint Scheme with Drop Tanks
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests