How do fighters do SAM hunting?

[Telnyashka]

Ok, I have always heard reports of all these new SAMs. But there has to be a way to destroy them by air, they cant just be an "I win" button.

What are some of the ways fighter jets would destroy say SA-12s and SA-13s or whatever? I mean how could they when right when they get in the range they get shot at by missiles flying at the same speed? do they simply take the chances and try to manuever around each missile or what?

[Roaming East]

Radar energy emitted from these weapons always exceeds there engagment range. When pulsing looking for targets a SEAD package will vector in on the emitted energy while either jamming aircraft neutralize the signal or the SEADers themselves fly beneath or around its engegment envelope (terrain and stuff) Let loose a HARM missle which homes in on the offending sites RADAR emissions and boom. No more air defense. at least in theory. Thats why you get alot of the cases of enemy defense systems keeping their equipment turned off after the first few days of war. It doesnt take long for word to spread that there are missles out there that seem to kill only active sights.

[Para]

The Iraqis had trick of of switching on a micro wave cooker with the door open, this omitted enough energy to attract attention of the fighter planes.

[demotivater]

Worked out quite well for them to. Oh wait, no it didn't. :lol:

[Michael RVR]

pfft, That they worked out that microwave thing is ingenious i think.

Besides, everyone knows that they never really had a chance. ;)

[Roaming East]

So wait a second, your saying a microwave, using its HIGHLY limited magnetron control circuit, is somehow able to confuse a RWR capable of identifying individual RADAR sets by frequency?
:cantbeli:
Sorry Wilbur but that dog just aint gonna hunt.
These are the same guys that wrap duct tape around RPG warheads to defeat chobram armor right? Yeah, Iraqi physics classes must be REAL interesting

[Jedburgh]

JP 3-01.4 JTTP for Joint Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (J-SEAD) (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_01_4.pdf)

Military SEAD: Assessing Future Needs (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf)

...and ya could'a attended the conference...SEAD 2005 (http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/6443.pdf).

[PeterG]

JP 3-01.4 JTTP for Joint Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (J-SEAD) (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_01_4.pdf)

Military SEAD: Assessing Future Needs (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf)

...and ya could'a attended the conference...SEAD 2005 (http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/6443.pdf).

Interesting documents! Thx! Respect to the wild weasels - they had one hell of a job!

[Michael RVR]

So wait a second, your saying a microwave, using its HIGHLY limited magnetron control circuit, is somehow able to confuse a RWR capable of identifying individual RADAR sets by frequency?
:cantbeli:
Sorry Wilbur but that dog just aint gonna hunt.

Dude, seeing as its obvious that you know about the same as me on this stuff (IE NOTHING) i did some checking. .

Summoning Missiles to the Oven

In the heat of massed missile strikes on Belgrade and Yugoslavian air defense radar positions in the spring of 1999, the telephone rang one night in a St. Petersburg apartment.

It was the chairman of the radio club of Yugoslavia, Khranislav Milocevic. Valentin Kashinov answered. The Yugoslav described the great destruction and casualties caused by strikes of NATO aircraft, "HARM" air-to-ground missiles, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Milocevic asked for help in fending off these bombardments. Valentin Vladimirovich immediately inquired if they had any microwave ovens. This was followed by a puzzled silence, and then: "Of course!" Kashinov advised that they get some ordinary microwave ovens and aim them upwards, with doors open, around an installation they wanted to protect, and then turn them on. Khranislav understood at once. The fact was that an American HARM missile would home in on any strong source of radio emission in the 400-10,000 MHz range, exactly the range of conventional household microwave ovens. Literally the next day following this conversation, NATO forced bombed their own embassies in Belgrade.

NATO pilots were fooled, and bombed microwave ovens instead of Serbian tanks for nearly half the time of the air attacks.

According to a British officer who spent six months in the region and offered his own assessment of bombing damage, the Serbs lured the NATO planes using household microwave ovens to simulate the emissions of armored transport systems.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOG211A.html

[Roaming East]

correct me if im wrong but wasnt it the Chinese embassy that got bombed? If it was the PRC is most definatly NOT a NATO entity so that throws the rest of the article in doubt concerning its validity. As for my practicle knowledge on this. I do support for mission tailored operations specifically for F16 CJ's most of the time. Take a look on google to find out what this aircrafts particular job is.

[Asheren]

Hmm from what i know some armies are working on decoys that can imitate radar signatures.

US Anti tank bombs and missiles are laser guided usualy. I don't think that any country have tracking technology able to hit tank aiming on their EM emission.

New generation of anti-radar guided weapons is able to hit target even if they turn it off after missile launch. They also be able to remember target signature so sorry oven will not work.

[Roaming East]

I actually went and read the link supplied about the Kosovo campaign and it almost made me want to cry. A stirring story of good ole fashion knowhow and timely ingenuety confounding those warlike americans and their insurmountable technology...yeah right. The proposal offered is wrong in that HARMS dont simply seek any Radiation source within its seeker limitations. That would result in missles immediatly veering for almost any non target from friendly systems to civilian communications arrays. Not very likely. The article is long on providing generic witness accounts but noticably lacking when it comess to dates places and actual names. Its almost totally worthless to use as a reference.

[NicNZ]

I am guessing that as the maximum engagement range of air defences increases (Im thinking about S-300 and S-400 in particular here, since that is what I am familiar with), the difficulty of engaging them will be greater and greater. It might even be that the range of the SA-12 and -13 missiles exceed the range of the HARM missiles hypothetically used to counter the launchers, forcing pilots to fly further into the engagement range to counter them.

[Roaming East]

Most enemy SAMs do have a huge range advantage over HARM and equivalent weapons. The air package on a SEAD/DEAD mission will typically include a jamming bird (used to be the old EF111's havent seen them in awhile i think the EA6B's replaced them) whose sole job is to spam enemy signals. If you know what systems your boys are up against this generally isnt TOO difficult though alot of the newer SAMs incorporate signal hopping and multi frequency capabilities. Game goes that if you know that for instance you enemy is fielding alot of SA2's, then the possible frequencies are narrower so you can devote all your jamming aircrafts capability at washing out your enemies signal. This works well enough to half older systems engagment range if not all together render it useless. Use of low flying strike aircraft aid this as well since the jamming bird has all the attention and an attack from a fast mover at a different bearing waste valuable time on the defenders part

[GazB]

Sorry, haven't much time at the moment... will post better answer later, but please note that HARM easily outranges SA-13. SA-13 is a short range heat seeking SAM mounted on the back of an MTLB artillery tractor. Its range is something like 5-6km.

The Missiles you are probably thinking of are the S-300, S-300V and S-400 series. The S-300V have been renamed Antei-2500.

S-300 = SA-10/-20

S-300V/Antei-2500 = SA-12A/12B

S-400 = SA ?

[Roaming East]

Sorry, haven't much time at the moment... will post better answer later, but please note that HARM easily outranges SA-13. SA-13 is a short range heat seeking SAM mounted on the back of an MTLB artillery tractor. Its range is something like 5-6km.

The Missiles you are probably thinking of are the S-300, S-300V and S-400 series. The S-300V have been renamed Antei-2500.

S-300 = SA-10/-20

S-300V/Antei-2500 = SA-12A/12B

S-400 = SA ?

The S-400 i believe is the SA-21 Triumf

[NicNZ]

Ah, my apologies, I should have known better. Gaz is of course right about the SA-13 not being associated with the S-300 or -400,

S-300 variants use SA-12 Gladiator and Giant. S-400 use SA-20 Triumf

[GazB]

Careful, you are mixing your terms...

SA-10 and SA-12 and SA-20 and SA-21 are NATO codenames, while Gladiator, Giant and Gargoyle are ASCC (Air standards coordinating committee) designations also used by NATO.

Triumph, Favorit, Strela, Kub, Buk, Tor, etc are Russian and Soviet names.

Standard SEAD techniques for use against current model Russian SAMs is what it has always been. Wild Weasel aircraft, Stealth aircraft, Cruise missiles against large sites detected from satellite, RPVs and UAVs, etc etc.

A game of cat and mouse in other words.

S-400 would be tricky but at the end of the day it would come down to how many missiles they have vs how many the west could afford.

How successful it would be is hard to tell but a few S-300s won't stop an airforce... you need the complete set of smaller SAMs, a layered defence including fighters and interceptors. A good attack ability would be useful too.

A good example currently would be Iran. It has bought new model Russian SAMs. Odds are pretty good that such a set up would deal with any individual threat easily (ie one cruise missile, or one strike package, or even a few ballistic missiles). The reality is that the US knows this and would not be that stupid. A few UAVs would be deniable, but if a few B-2s don't return then there would be questions. It will be a game of cat and mouse. One side pushing the other to turn on their radars. (Note most of the time the S-300 crew would not need to light up as they would likely have access to the civilian radar network which would allow them to track targets without revealing their position. Destroying or jamming a civilian radar network is probably a step the US won't tke unless it is ready to make war. The main problem with relying on satellites is that satellites only see the target area for about 6 minutes every 120 minutes or so and as all the radar, missile and other support vehicles for the S-300 are mobile then the information might not be accurate enough for a strike.

Regarding your original question there is no airlaunched missile that I know of that out ranges even the old 1980s deployed S-300 systems. (Except of course the 120km range AS-11).

To recap:

The S-400 i believe is the SA-21 Triumf

Triump is indeed the name of the S-400, though it is the Russian name.

I have not seen the SA-21 confirmed as the designation... they also have the SOSNA-R and the new model SA-19s with roughly double the range of the early models that might get that number.


S-300/S-300PMU Favorit = SA-10 GRUMBLE/-20 GARGOYLE

S-300V/Antei-2500 = SA-12A/12B GLADIATOR/GIANT

S-400 Triumf= SA xx ?

Not suggesting you are wrong, as the SA-21 designation would be logical, but I haven't heard it confirmed yet...

[NicNZ]

SA-20 I believe, chaps. SA-21 Mysk seems to be a rumour in development.