S-400 and F-35

[milosh]

@eloise

Chinese marketed their decoys as 100% same in IR spectrum and 98% in radar spectrum (YT video from couple years ago with thermal and SAR tests) their decoys are inflatable rubber + light metal frame, from close range Chinese looks better then Russian decoy because of light metal frame but from distance they are same.

Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order - it still less then ARRGM or JSOW-ER.

Any info about 9M100 missile price? It looks lot more pontent then earlier shorter range Soviet/Russian missiles.

[zhangmdev]

Commercial space-based SAR can see the inside of oil facilities and shipping containers. Inflatable decoys cannot trick SAR unless they have the same inner structures of the same densities.

[hornetfinn]

The question of prices is very interesting too.
Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order - it still less then ARRGM or JSOW-ER. It is so funny when stealth fun starts to discuss about air defence missile so expensive, so expensive... Compare to every decoy, or UAV (Predator, Byractar TB2, something else), or with Tomahawks/Scalps/JASSMs...

CLOS missiles like used in Pantsir and Thor are really cheap as they don't have expensive seeker and guidance systems. Semi-active missiles like used in Buk are a lot more expensive as they have those components. But the launch platforms do have a lot of expensive systems in both. The attacker is trying to kill those launch platforms and radar systems, both of which are much more expensive and difficult to replace than AARGM or JSOW-ER or even JASSM/Scalp/Tomahawk. Of course the SAM system is trying to prevent that. All in all modern air defence systems are very expensive, but they do have their own role on the battlefield. Even USA has decent amount of air defence systems and is fielding newer systems.

[eloise]

Is SPEAR ready now? Even for Typhoons. So, when it will ready - come back and we will discuss it.

already done various flight test since 2016, if you count on it not being produced then you gonna have a bad time

HALBERGMOOS, Germany, July 12, 2016 -- MBDA's Spear air-to-surface strike weapon has successfully been fired by a British-production Eurofighter Typhoon for the first time, Eurofighter reports.

The test of the networked weapon was conducted by teams from MBDA and BAE Systems in England and involved the Spear transitioning to powered flight and completing a series of maneuvers before reaching its pre-planned point of impact.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/0 ... 468342987/

JSM is a another kind of JSOW? And of course it isn't ready yet?

It is very different from JSOW. Already done various flight test since 2015 and entered production phase in 2019

JSOWs, JASSMs and similar is subsonic and too slow to catch something higly mobile like Buk.

Too slow?. Even though they only fly at subsonic speed, these missile can still fly at around 1098 km/h, how fast can Buk vehicle travel? 40 km/h?

And again you by some mistic kind exactly know position every vehicle of every complex, from 400km and under radiohorizon...
Does F-35 can track targets at such range, especially on the ground? Of course can't.

Like I said before, the goal of air defense is to protect high value ground targets, the goal of these strike aircraft is to attack and destroy high value ground assets. The first wave will be long range cruise missile like JASSM-XR, JASSM-ER, Tomahawk, AGM-86 followed by decoys such as MALD-N, MALD-X, SPEAR-EW attacking high value stationary targets like airbase, OTH radars, command center, power plants. Hypersonic weapons like ARRW, HSWC can be used as well. Followed behind this wave are stealth aircraft and recon drone like DASH-X, Atilus-900. Air defense have two choice, either they try to attack these cruise missile and hypersonic weapon, in which case they have to emit, if they emit, they will be located by F-35, F-22 or mini recon drone like DASH-X and then they will be attacked. If the air defense choose to stay silent then high value stationary targets such as the one I mentioned above will be destroyed. It is very simple.
Also because loitering recon drone such as Dash-X can track location of radars and relay back to the aircraft that drop it, the F-35 can actually know the location of ground radar without even get in the line of sight.

Buk has at least 3 fire batteries own, and again - if Kupol radar is at 70km range, fire battery may be much closer. If something goes wrong, Buk would shoot down airborne munition too. Modern Buks can shoot down even low range ballistic missiles like ATACMS, it recieve anti-ballistic capabuilities too, as its big brother, because some kind ARRGM isn't hard target. And again - ARRGM-ER ISN'T READY yet.

shootdown something in test where all conditions is perfect is quite a big different from doing it in reality when you are being jammed and attacked

If you would waste this kind of munition on every mid-range complex - what leave on core complex? Nothing. Is cruise missiles and anti-radars missiles endless? No, it purchase by dozens, sometimes hundreds, not by thousands in one fiscal year contract... Every year 2 Buk-M3 divisions produced/modernized from M1-2 since 2016.

I'm sure cruise missile is cheaper than a BuK radar vehicle, and it isn't like they produce thousands of Buk vehicle every fiscal year either

And what is more easy to reload - complex on position, or plane in flight? Land troops air defence complexes like Buk/S-300V** can launch missiles even from transport-loading vehicles, so you can't catch its on reloading, like that Pantsir in Syria in 2018 - every missile is ready to launch every time, it don't need to be on launcher vehicle.

The very core advantage of air power is force concentration, if you have 100 aircraft and have to attack 20 targets at 20 locations, it is very easy to focus them all in one location then move on to the next when that one is done. But you can't do the same thing with ground based air defense, if you have 20 locations to protect, you have no choice but to thin out your radar, TEL and distribute them evenly in all these locations

[eloise]

Some more words about another kind of decoys.

It isn't towed decoy its can placed that all ARRGM/Daliah flies so far, that even terminal seeker can't find target.

That decoy work purely on passive RF sensor and have no effect on the GPS/INS , MMW radar seeker of AARGM-ER. It also won't work on the EO seeker of Delilah and Rocks

Isn't any strings, place don't limited, resulting jam is much more correct that towed decoys because it created not only by two sousces, but much more. It can deploy even multiply fantoms, this is almost impossibble by one/lined sourse in plane's case. Towed decoy can cover from behind only, but this can defend from all directions easily. And even switching off defended radar is unnesesary.
Do I need to add that such decoys are 2-3 orders cheaper that every airborn munition (exept dumb bombs)? Because airborn munitions fly to outplaced fantoms, this decoys don't destroyed anyway, instead of inflatable decoys.

Planes can also have multiple source of jamming and defend from multiple direction with self propelled decoys like MALD-N or SPEAR-EW, or if you want it cheap, they can also carry jammer that can fit in chaff dispenser

(can you show me bay for towed decoy on F-35?)

Thors M2-KM in 2013 costs about 370 mln.rub. for each combat vehicle. It is about 4-5 mln.$ for that times. Every Thor-M2 has 16 missiles instead of 8, and for overhelming 1 Thor you need more than 2 F-35 with 8 SDB each. It is more than 200mln$ with engines and armament. For one unlucky Thor's battery (4 vehicles) you must send more than 8 F-35. Your's military budget will collapse immediatly if you would do something like that - send almost billion dollars for saturation/overhelming every 10mln. Wasting 32*230 000$ for 32*40 000.

Firstly, that assuming that your Thor-M2 vehicle have perfect PK for its missiles. All missile once launched always hit target 100% percent of the time even when there is jamming and attack from multiple direction. That close to fairy land than reality
Secondly, even if assuming your Thors MK2 system have 100% PK, it still doesn't need 2 F-35 to overwhelmed 1 Thor MK2. Since even 1 F-35 with external hard point can carry 24 SPEAR/SPEAR-EW/SDB ,and that not even count its 2 AIM-9X at wing tip which can be used in air to ground mode as well. As your Thor-MK2 can only carry 16 missiles, even with 100% PK, it will be overwhelmed every time . And if one preferred long range attack, he can switch out for a load of 20 SPEAR-EW and 2 Rocks or HSWab and F-35 can attack from distance > 400 km with very high number of munitions

Full passive, it will shoot down all JSOWs/JASSMs by cost of one or few 57mm artillery rounds with programmable fuse. Let's drain this by "cheap" airborn munitions, or "cheap" UAVs/loitering garbage... Airborn side even don't understand what happens, why its all disappears like stones thrown into the river.

That thing doesn't even have a radar so it will have very hard time finding and tracking multiple target at the sametimes, then consider that it only have 148 rounds, it won't be able to fire for very long. Last but not least, cannon round are pretty inaccurate if target maneuver once the rounds are fired

[milosh]

F-35 with 24 PGM surely cost lot more then one Thor-M2 battery (four Thor-M2 per battery) or 64 missiles, I think 64 missiles are more then enough to deal with 24 PGMs.

Btw Thor-M2 missiles will be replaced with 9M100 IR fire and forget missile. So future SHORAD TEL would be lot cheaper and probable passive, I expect it would be something like 57mm gun and 9M100.


F-35 and towed decoys is oxymoron, I see it have them but wtf?!? I mean it is stealth and way towed decoy is solved impact stealth. As I see it lower that decoy box which doesn't look stealthy at all at least if that is final design. I would expect it can relase decoy and then pull up decoy box having only small gap for wire.

[eloise]

F-35 and towed decoys is oxymoron, I see it have them but wtf?!? I mean it is stealth and way towed decoy is solved impact stealth. As I see it lower that decoy box which doesn't look stealthy at all at least if that is final design. I would expect it can relase decoy and then pull up decoy box having only small gap for wire.

That towed decoy bay in that photo is lowered for decoys installation. In case of normal condition, the door likely pull up after the decoy is released. Anyway, towed decoys is last ditch countermeasure, only meant to be used once enemy already launch a missile at you. For normal jamming, you would use APG-81 or the fuselage aperture or cruising decoys like MALD-N and SPEAR-EW

[ricnunes]

F-35 with 24 PGM surely cost lot more then one Thor-M2 battery (four Thor-M2 per battery) or 64 missiles, I think 64 missiles are more then enough to deal with 24 PGMs.

There's no way 64 Tor missiles (or even other land based and even more advanced SAMs) would be able to shot down a volley of 24 PGMs like for example 24 GBU-53 (SDBII).

It seems to be that I'm 'seeing' (reading is the accurate term) here a 'theory' that just because a modern SAM is more deadly against a fighter aircraft and since this one moves (performs evasive maneuvers) and has onboard jammers/decoys that suddenly PGMs which don't maneuver a much as a fighter aircraft or don't have onboard jammers/decoys are sitting ducks against these same SAMs.
IMO, nothing could be farther from the truth! Saying the above is like saying that if you change from a sniper rifle which you can shoot and hit a human figure at a distance of 800 meters with one where you can perform the same shot/hit at 1200 meters that you can suddenly and with the later sniper rifle you can (easily) shoot the enemy soldier's rifle instead of the soldier itself even at shorter distances!

Shooting at incoming PGMs presents a HUGE challenge because and just like the enemy soldier's rifle it's a very small target. Shooting at very small targets is increasingly and extremely hard even if they don't evade or have onboard jammers/decoys - this is the laws of physics and there's nothing you can do about it!
To make things much worse, PGM's like the GBU-53 are stealthy which make them much harder to be detected and tracked by any enemy fire control radar. And to worsen things even further since these are gliding PGMs they are also stealthy in the IR spectrum (the other kind of sensor which could eventually detect and track incoming PGMs).
This means that even if or when you're able to track those incoming PGMs that it will be too late to destroy the vast majority of them, let alone all of them!

Of course you could probably mention the Israeli Iron Dome system which can shoot down also very small rockets and even mortar shells. But again this is a very different situation because:
1- The kind of targets that the Iron Dome system proves to be very effective against (rockets and/mortar shells) fly very predictable and much longer ballistic trajectory which gives the system a much bigger reaction time and a much better firing solution compared to something that it's flying straight towards the system.
2- Together with 1-, since the Iron Dome isn't usually the target it has (again) a much longer reaction time.
3- Since this same system is used against unguided ballistic targets, the Iron Dome can calculate which incoming rockets/mortars are going to hit something (valuable) and those that not (those that will miss the target) and will only engage the relevant targets which of course maximizes the system's effectiveness. This later reason is one of the main reasons if not the main reason that which makes the Iron Dome an extremely effective system.
But this is something that it won't work (so well) against incoming PGMs because and since they are guided, all incoming PGMs are relevant and will hit something valuable.

Btw Thor-M2 missiles will be replaced with 9M100 IR fire and forget missile. So future SHORAD TEL would be lot cheaper and probable passive, I expect it would be something like 57mm gun and 9M100.

The problem still stands: incoming PGMs are very small targets and therefore much harder to get hit, let alone to be detected and tracked!

F-35 and towed decoys is oxymoron, I see it have them but wtf?!? I mean it is stealth and way towed decoy is solved impact stealth. As I see it lower that decoy box which doesn't look stealthy at all at least if that is final design. I would expect it can relase decoy and then pull up decoy box having only small gap for wire.

eloise already replied to you: Decoys are used when the F-35 is detected and tracked and/or being fired upon - or a resort when the F-35 is 'discovered' by the enemy - which means any negative effect on RCS that the decoy opened box may generate would be irrelevant.

[madrat]

I'm sorry but these ESL replies are illogical and incomprehensible.

[milosh]

Battery of Tors but even they couldn't engage 24 targets at once, I didn't check Tor-2 capability. Tor-2 can engage four targets so four Tor-2 can engage 16 at max, eight remaining PGMs would be more then enough to hit them. And that is of course if remaining 16 PGMs are tracked.

No wonder Russians are working on Morfey but there is very little public info about that system. What we know: 36 small missiles very short range (5km or 10km depend from source) and AESA spherical radar.

[jessmo112]

I dont get it. There are F-35s flying combat missions as we speak over Syria. The Russian point defenses have been out classed in every way.
Even out classed by UAVs in some
Cases.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 6680258808

[ricnunes]

I dont get it. There are F-35s flying combat missions as we speak over Syria. The Russian point defenses have been out classed in every way.
Even out classed by UAVs in some
Cases.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 6680258808

Exactly! Those Russian Air Defense systems can't even seem to be able to successfully engage slow and loitering UAVs let alone successfully engage faster and smaller PGMs.

[michaelemouse]

The question of prices is very interesting too.
Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order

CLOS missiles like used in Pantsir and Thor are really cheap as they don't have expensive seeker and guidance systems. Semi-active missiles like used in Buk are a lot more expensive as they have those components. But the launch platforms do have a lot of expensive systems in both.

For roughly equivalent levels of tech and sophistication, what tends to be more expensive, the seeker/sensors or the guidance/processing components? E.g.: How much is the main radar aboard the F-35 or other platforms and how much is the main computer? How about other platforms like the E-2, destroyers? Has there been a trend in the relative proportion?

I'm wondering because if the tendency is for processing to cost significantly more than sensing, then it may make sense to use a more centralized system with 1 main brain and many eyes. But is that the case?


Pantsir and Thor are both cheap because they're command guidance, right? Is accuracy at long range highest with active guidance, lowest with command guidance and semi-active guidance in the middle?

[hornetfinn]

The question of prices is very interesting too.
Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order

CLOS missiles like used in Pantsir and Thor are really cheap as they don't have expensive seeker and guidance systems. Semi-active missiles like used in Buk are a lot more expensive as they have those components. But the launch platforms do have a lot of expensive systems in both.

For roughly equivalent levels of tech and sophistication, what tends to be more expensive, the seeker/sensors or the guidance/processing components? E.g.: How much is the main radar aboard the F-35 or other platforms and how much is the main computer? How about other platforms like the E-2, destroyers? Has there been a trend in the relative proportion?

I'm wondering because if the tendency is for processing to cost significantly more than sensing, then it may make sense to use a more centralized system with 1 main brain and many eyes. But is that the case?

It's really dificult to say as every system is different and have differing operating principles. For example in F-35 the integrated core processor handles the data from all the sensors the aircraft has and is not tied to any one sensor. Processing is also very important part of the sensing and can not really be separated in modern systems.

Pantsir and Thor are both cheap because they're command guidance, right? Is accuracy at long range highest with active guidance, lowest with command guidance and semi-active guidance in the middle?

Basically yes. Command guidance is the cheapest guidance method for a missile and is good for SHORAD applications. It requires only a small amount of inexpensive components in a missile for the guidance with no seeker and associated computing system. All that is done in the launching system, which carries the sensors and computing systems. It has many advantages besides allowing cheap missiles. However it does also have several disadvantages which is the reason why it has been replaced with other guidance methods in newest SAM systems. One of those is that the accuracy goes down with the range. They also require constant and accurate target and missile tracking during the whole engagement which can take 20-30 seconds or even more and makes them targets for counterattacks. It also places restrictions on how many targets the system can engage simultaneously and what engagement geometries are possible.

Longer range systems require other guidance methods with active guidance being the best for longest range systems. Semi-active guidance can achieve good accuracy, but has other limitations that lower effectiveness in long range engagements. That's why all longer range systems are going for active guidance missiles, including S-400. Active guidance systems are also getting cheaper. For example the new LOWER-AD interceptor with active radar guidance system costs about $150k. Israel also has several relatively cheap interceptors with active guidance.

[michaelemouse]

Longer range systems require other guidance methods with active guidance being the best for longest range systems. Semi-active guidance can achieve good accuracy, but has other limitations that lower effectiveness in long range engagements. That's why all longer range systems are going for active guidance missiles, including S-400. Active guidance systems are also getting cheaper. For example the new LOWER-AD interceptor with active radar guidance system costs about $150k. Israel also has several relatively cheap interceptors with active guidance.

It sounds like semi-active guidance has some of the disadvantages of command (illuminating platform must emit and maintain LoS with target) with those of active guidance (sensors and processors) yet it's still quite common and not just in air-to-air. In what use-cases is semi-active guidance preferable?