A detailed look at the S-300P anti-aircraft missile system
ausairpower.net
ausairpower.net
I’m not denying Russians can achieve technological brilliance, often bypassing budgetary constraints in novel ways, equally their military technology seems to regularly come up top trumps on paper and not in the battlefield.
I read this article with great interest over technical details, but stop short of accepting conclusions along the lines of "Flap Lid is comparable to SPY-1". Only the folks who train and operate against those systems in the real world really know if that's true, and it's one of the things we are least likely to have accurate information about in the public domain.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1vj7r6/is_...
Thinking about what Kopp says my conclusion is that he wouldn’t be happy with any single engine fighter.
The Ukrainian Air Force is still operating mostly because the Russian one is somewhat MIA. Possible/Partial explanation for their bad performance is corruption. Another one is much more alarming and that is that the Russian strategy does not require air superiority.
Either way it is not relevant to the S-300 which is deployed within the borders of Russia as it is a defensive system.
What you want to read about instead is the Krasukha:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-cap...
A hypothesis was that this indicates that before the war only a limited number of aircrews got sufficient flight time (which, obviously, is quite expensive; especially if many of your planes - just as tanks - aren't properly maintained to save costs or due to corruption) and the same people were used in all the operations in the last decade; and once these air crews "ran out" there is a bottleneck in capable replacements.
But S-300 definitely was deployed not only within the borders of Russia but also by Russia in Ukraine, I recall seeing evidence of that - it's a defensive system that is also used to defend the deployed Russian ground forces from air attacks.
it is a bit unclear why, yet Russia has frequently been using much more expensive Su-30/35 fighters and Su-34 bombers for close air support instead of more traditional/suitable/cheap Su-25. As close air support naturally loses a lot of planes to MANPADS and air-defense guns, especially considering that Su-30/35/34 aren't armored like Su-25, Russia has lost a lot of those Su-30/35/34. Also using mostly unguided bombs (despite all the Russian propaganda claims of using only "high-precision weapons"- just look at that glorious state TV report on using "high-precision" where they show plane loaded only with FAB-250 unguided bombs at timestamp 24:55 of https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ - and they even show supposed launch of a ground attack missile from that plane loaded only with those bombs :) Russian planes have had to go pretty low to achieve any resemblance of close hits - it is the city bombing that they do from 8-10 km altitude while bombing any specific target requires to go very low where they again lose to MANPADS and other air-defenses. As a result of high losses (close to 100 planes out of supposedly 1300 combat capable planes that the whole Russia has - that 1300 is an official number, divide by 2x at least to get real number :) Russia has significantly scaled back the close air support and decreased air superiority missions.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
I think you'll agree that is bollocks. No sane modern invasion plan would consider air supremacy as only a nice to have. In this case we can clearly conclude that other assumptions made at the planning stage were badly, badly wrong.
Russia really fucked up in their assessment of their adversary in all areas. They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation. It wasn't a "blitzkrieg" because the entirety of the world's intelligence ignored the fuff and called it before kick off, publically. Also UKR were able to prepare somewhat.
The horrendous thing about this conflict is that Russia cannot expect to win on their original terms. They will still kill civilians wholesale and destroy infrastructure in a desperate attempt to claim a "win".
Civvies have and will die in greater numbers than soldiers in this conflict and that is something that needs to be considered by us all. At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation?
Welcome to Russia. They don't fly SEED. And they knew that going in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzUCSdxi7k
> They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation.
Yes, I'm well aware of this narrative. I happen to think their current plan, however we arrived here, is to play for time. The opposite of a blitz.
They are depopulating and starving Ukraine and flattening major cities with long range artillery. You aren't too far off. But it isn't to claim a "win", they aren't cartoon villains.
> At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation?
Unfortunately at no point. That is part of their calculus.
They appear to have gained an edge over the US in both offensive and defensive nuclear capabilities as well as having caught the EU with their pants completely down. This is the likely reason why they wasted a few of their new hypersonic missiles as a demonstration. And why they flew into Swedish air space and flaunted hot nukes which has never happened before even during the Cold War.
Citation needed. They appear to be a generation behind their adversary in just about every way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_...
https://www.axios.com/kinzhal-hypersonic-missiles-russia-ukr...
US has heavily invested in their second strike capabilities, and is far ahead of Russia on that.
US has largely viewed investment in first strike capabilities as a waste, the DPRK is their only adversary that could possibly be decapitated with such weapons.
A first strike against Russia would result in an unstoppable second strike, what good are first strike weapons in this scenario?
The Mattis quote in your article provides a good tl;dr
>U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis stated Russia already has the capability to hit U.S. port cities with missiles, and said that Poseidon "does not change at all the strategic balance".
US is already incapable of stopping “regular” ICBMs, poseidon does not change the calculus at all.
"Kinzhal" is a slight modification of standard Russian "Iskander" ballistic missile allowing it to be launched from a plane (specifically an intercepter fighter jet MiG-31).
As with most ballistic missiles, the warhead flies a part of its trajectory at a hypersonic speed, but has to slow down at the final part of its trajectory. It is just as hard (or easy) to intercept as any other ballistic missile.
Mounting it on a plane gives it a longer range, and potentially makes it harder to be destroyed by a pre-emptive strike (although experts disagree on this).
Traditionally the term "hypersonic weapon" is used for very different class of weapons. Basically, a true "hypersonic weapon" is something able to maneuver while flying at hypersonic speeds, and able to maintain this speed all the way to the target. "Kinzhal" is nothing like it.
So it is not some fantastic wonderwaffe making NATO air defenses suddenly useless. It presents some additional challenges, but nothing drastic.
What makes possible nuclear war with Russia really dangerous is just the number of "conventional" ballistic missiles Russia has. In theory Russia may launch thousands of rockets carrying tens of thousands of warheads, and no air defense has any hope to intercept all or even most of them.
This is the same as it always was. The difference with Soviet Union is that Soviet leaders appeared to be afraid of a world suicide, and Russian leadership appears (or wants to appear) to be crazy and ready to destroy the world.
I assume you mean SEAD? (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses)
The rummoured narrative is that the Russian spies believed that they have enough higly positioned Ukrainian military officers on their payroll. Thus the Ukrainian president will either have to run away at the start of hostilities or get couped by his own people. After that they can place a new leadership structure on Ukraine.
I don’t know if it is true. I don’t have proof either way of course. It’s merely one of the possible narratives which could explain how the Russian’s military command could have hoped for a quick victory while not being stupid.
It also appears that in the Russian case either the S300 itself or the training of the crews has not been particularly effective against the Bayraktar drones, which I'm not aware of Russia having an equivalent of to use against the Ukrainians.
https://www.mideastcenter.org/post/how-did-turkish-uavs-outm...
There are a lot of military experts saying that they see baffling examples of incompetence from the Russian army in this war, failing at really basic stuff.
I'm no military expert, but I've seen Russian infantry videos where they are basically running around like headless chickens as the saying goes, like they received no training at all.
Russia has been making in-house AESA for a decade. they started with APAR radar in 1963, just a few years off from the US.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Zhuk-AE-Analysis.html
they also sell the only radar capable of (on the open market) detecting hypersonics, the 59Н6-ТЕ mobile radar.
They've been turned into bumbling idiots on Twitter and Reddit. It's a shame, but in my mind it is quite dangerous because sooner or later some president/general is going to make a very bad decision based on that meme. "How could their nukes possibly work?"
But if you can get something lofted to get in its way before it hits you, it is unlikely to survive that.
I thought that was one of the key abilities of hypersonic missile: that they can indeed steer around things?
That said, this is far far outside my wheelhouse, so I admit to ignorance.
The bad news is Hypersonic glide vehicles can steer around.
I saw some articles implying that they thought so too but are actually using a lot more Chinese components even as substitutes for military grade components. Given that the portion of US companies make a military and commercial grade component with only thermal differences, I would wonder if they aren't getting a lot of commercial grade versions of US designs from China.
It would be interesting if someone goes through their wreckage strewn about and starts to catalog the finer details of some of the small components.
They do and have had it since 1960's, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikron_Group
The process is not as advanced as the TSMC's one, but they seem to have progressed (or have been progressing?) to 28-45 nm technological process in 2018.
I think China makes Russian AD built under license, so from the local Chinese suppliers.
Now, the F-15 is flown by the Israel, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the USA - but SK, Qatar and Singapore were all sold the F-15 after the F-22 made its first flight.
Had F-22 production continued, it's quite possible we would have seen a similar pattern there.
EDIT: in comparison, the F-16 is operated by Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Chile, Venezuela, and of course the USA. 26 countries vs 7.
The problem isn't the size. It's the cost. It's expensive enough that making the ship a bit bigger gets you a bunch more capability for not much more cost.
The direct comparison for ground mobile would probably be the TPY-2 radar.
I was under the impression that the JSF was overall stealthier than the Raptor. Searching for more details on Google has led me down quite the delicious rabbit hole of Quora posts filled with wild speculation and half-sourced rumors. Here[1] is one of the better ones.
1: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-F-35-have-a-lower-RCS-than-th...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ministryofdefenceua/3189460316...
if the engine doesn't ignite then the missile falls back down on the launcher, resulting in this genre of Youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=S-300+FAIL
Sometimes the fuse goes off when the missile hits the launcher and usually blows up the other missiles in the launcher. Other times the fuse doesn't go off but then you've got an awful unexploded ordinance problem. (Who knows when it will go off?)
That way if there is a failure to launch its contained inside the VLS cell instead of potentially covering the decks in missile components.
Although I suppose a cold launch has a good chance of throwing a failed missile off the deck and into the sea if its at any angle.
What do they do after? Is the site repaired? Scrapped?
It happens enough that there are a handful of videos on Youtube. Similar failures happen with vertically launched missiles from ships
The missile should continue up not fall back down.
Not the technical failure, that is clear enough but the role and reaction of the crowd the camera is in. They seem to be wearing green fatigues so one would think they are soldiers… but they are all so unorganised? I understand that when a missile falls back one would swear or shout as an involuntary reaction, but they seem more like a partying higschool group than professionals at work.
The cherry on top is the redheaded girl who seems to have started to leave without her coat and someone brings it after her. Sadly I don’t speak the language.
I’m wondering is this maybe a high school group on a military themed day trip? Or I’m just massively overestimating the professionalism of soldiers? I would be curious if anyone has any insight into that video.
The S-400 is an improved version of the S-300, they upgraded all the parts (radar, missile, launcher) but it is the same architecture (which is basically the same as the US Patriot but in most respects better)
The S-500 has insane range, can hit low earth orbit satellites and more relevant it can hit this kind of aircraft hundreds of miles away
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry
An aircraft like that can light up the battlefield with radar from far away and let stealth aircraft operate close to the enemy without switching their own radar.
Anyhow, Russians don't believe in "air superiority" (control the airspace with their own plane) but instead they have anti-aircraft missiles to defend the anti-aircraft missiles that defend their anti-aircraft missiles. They might not control the battlespace completely but it will be a dangerous place to fly.
Initially the UH-1 of Vietnam fame was a single engine helicopter because the expected service life was deemed to be too short to justify the expenses of a second one. Stuff that gets used gets damaged, and in war and combat destroyed. Par of the course.
To get air supremacy, you need to have planes flying in the enemy's sky, but to do so you need to destroy the enemy's own air defence, with what is called a SEAD campaign (which stands for “Supression of Ennemy Air Defense”) and from what is happening in Ukraine it's pretty clear that the VKS doesn't know how to do SEAD (pretty much like the US in the Vietnam war, where they've learned the hard way).
Based on what information exactly?
It's a war, any mainstream information is going to be 100% lies and propaganda.
Literally all of them were like “Wait, why do Ukraine still have planes and Russian planes don't fly over Ukraine-controlled land? Are you telling me they can't do SEAD? Holly cow!”, all of them.
This is Russia we're talking about, they could turn Ukraine and their shitty US sponsored Nazi army into a pile of ashes in a millisecond if that was their goal.
I've always found the US war propaganda really cringe, but the Russian one don't even try to make a coherent story. Zero fuck given.
It's a good read about how Ukrainian pilots worked to foil Russian anti-aircraft measures.
Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations:
- SAMs beat planes.
- Planes beat ground forces.
- Ground forces beat SAMs.
Within the ground forces themselves:
- Infantry beats tanks.
- Tanks beat artillery.
- Artillery beats infantry.
Examples of this kind abound.
Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a column of tanks on its own is just a case of scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to figure out how to fight alongside tanks.
Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war, adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending on the circumstances.
That makes also an interesting case study for Taiwan. If, or rather when, Taiwan can deny its air space a Chinese invasion is basically of the table. The Battle of Britain showed that much. And Ukraine showed that current AA, deployed with proper doctrine and part of a well defined and integrated strategy, can deny air space to modern air forces. Personally, I'm surprised how well drones work. All in all Taiwan seems to have decent chance in case China tries something stupid. Being an island definitely helps as well.
The Battle of Britain showed, so, that Germany called of the invasion once it was clear that air supremacy was not going to be achieved. Which meant that the Royal Navy wouldn't be neutralized to the point of allowing enough of the invasion force to actually cross the channel. The same holds, to an extend, true for China and Taiwan. Without air supremacy China cannot be sure to get enough ground forces across the straight to establish a sustainable beach head. They fail to do that and they lost.
Military is not about rock paper scissors. This meme needs to die.
SAM beats planes is probably the most ridiculous one on this list, since most SAM destroyed at war since the 50s where in fact destroyed by airstrikes.
SAM destroys planes and planes destroy SAM, that's it.
Almost any weapons is able to destroy anything in a favorable engagement. For instance, during this war, we've even seen footage of
- at least three Russian tanks destroyed by IFV or APC[1]
- an helicopter destroyed by a anti-tank missile[2]
In the end, it all depends on how one force engage with another one, and different forces have different strength and weaknesses when it comes to engagement.
- Infantry is really good at concealing, and is highly mobile in urban situation. But they have little mobility on their own in a wide battlefield, have low range (especially against enemy infantry), and have limited firepower (suppression fire isn't something infantry can do effectively on a battlefield).
- Artillery has excellent range, lot of firepower but will be defeated (and often even captured) by pretty much anything that can come close enough.
- Tanks are heavily armored, have decent range and a lot of firepower, but they are kind of hard to hide…
[1]: There's two here, https://nitter.net/UAWeapons/status/1512060297607065602#m and one here: https://nitter.net/IAPonomarenko/status/1505461949999501312#... [2]: https://nitter.net/kemal_115/status/1511292835735261192#m
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/03/30/will-slovaki...
The US does not have any, as far as I know.
"Lethal Aid".. hmmm
https://anti-empire.com/us-is-transferring-large-suicide-dro...
The biggest problem is likely to find a military contractor willing to build an inexpensive high flying drone.
I’m thinking of something a few orders of magnitude cheaper. Flight need not cost millions. Airfoils used for human powered flight produce planes weighing 300lbs, powered with only 300 watts. Scale this up to a 3000lbs flying bomb, using 3kw, or less than 5HP. Let it slog along at 40km/h, and in an 8 hour transit, they’ve covered over 300km. If electric, that requires just 24kwh of batteries, contained in 5 Tesla battery modules at 55lbs each, for 275lbs of batteries. Each module is around $1500 used, so $7500 in batteries. Foam and plastic wrapped wings with aluminum spars could be constructed for a few thousand dollars at scale. Add in the Mark 84 payload at $3k, and a navigation system for <$1000. Total could be well under $20k. Launched in a wave of 1000, flying at night, tens of meters off the ground to avoid radar, rising to maximum altitude prior to getting within AA range, roughly an hour before destination, this $20M swarm of 1000 2000lbs bombs needs to be neutralized by the enemy. They can only use their S-300/S-400s. Each cruise missile would be capable of taking out any ship in the Russian Black Sea fleet. Sevestapol would be a indefensible against nightly attacks launched from just 300km away in Odessa. Even Russia would eventually run out of S-300 missiles. Probably in the first night. Target the launch points? Where? Anywhere within a 300km radius? The day before, drones could fly themselves (unarmed) to 100 different preset locations within this 300km radius, met by small teams with generators to recharge the batteries. 100 teams, each charging 10 drones. Would be hard to locate and destroy the launch points.
Batteries, electric motors, foam and aluminum https://youtu.be/eNSN6qet1kE
Just optimize it for military purposes.
Just needs to be optimized to get above anti-aircraft range, and with a sufficient range. Mount a large enough bomb along with sufficient gps guidance and terminal optical guidance (make it a threat they can’t ignore) and they’ll have to shoot it down.