Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:47 am

In the Gulf War (2003), the Iraqis fired over 1,600 SAMs. They shot down one fixed wing fighter and six helicopters.

How would a modern SAM system do, in 2021?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:39 am

The US now has over 600 stealth aircraft so they would probably suffer no casualties and the war would be over in a fraction of the time. They also operate helicopters differently so they probably would not have any casualties.

I think the US is now at the point where their military could take on the entire world combined and still win. They so severely downplay their capability to continue to get funding. The US has so many black programs while the rest of the world is struggling to field capabilities the US had 20 years ago.

In the first gulf war I would say the US was 100 times more powerful than Iraq. A huge army does not mean much these days. Today I think the US is 100 times more powerful than China. With 100+ stealth fighters entering service each year they are easily maintaining this massive lead.

The reason why I say 100 times more powerful is because if any particular weapon system is slightly more advanced than the enemy it often results in an extremely large kill ratio difference. Attack sub versus attack sub, fighter versus fighter.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:06 am

In any armed conflict you (?should?)have a past conflict constructive objective.

That superiority you see does apparently do nothing for a constructive outcome.
i.e. a Foreverwar like the US does is a failure.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:23 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The US now has over 600 stealth aircraft so they would probably suffer no casualties and the war would be over in a fraction of the time. They also operate helicopters differently so they probably would not have any casualties.

I think the US is now at the point where their military could take on the entire world combined and still win. They so severely downplay their capability to continue to get funding. The US has so many black programs while the rest of the world is struggling to field capabilities the US had 20 years ago.

In the first gulf war I would say the US was 100 times more powerful than Iraq. A huge army does not mean much these days. Today I think the US is 100 times more powerful than China. With 100+ stealth fighters entering service each year they are easily maintaining this massive lead.

The reason why I say 100 times more powerful is because if any particular weapon system is slightly more advanced than the enemy it often results in an extremely large kill ratio difference. Attack sub versus attack sub, fighter versus fighter.

I wish this was true.

It's not.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 4037
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:43 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The US now has over 600 stealth aircraft so they would probably suffer no casualties and the war would be over in a fraction of the time. They also operate helicopters differently so they probably would not have any casualties.

I think the US is now at the point where their military could take on the entire world combined and still win. They so severely downplay their capability to continue to get funding. The US has so many black programs while the rest of the world is struggling to field capabilities the US had 20 years ago.

In the first gulf war I would say the US was 100 times more powerful than Iraq. A huge army does not mean much these days. Today I think the US is 100 times more powerful than China. With 100+ stealth fighters entering service each year they are easily maintaining this massive lead.

The reason why I say 100 times more powerful is because if any particular weapon system is slightly more advanced than the enemy it often results in an extremely large kill ratio difference. Attack sub versus attack sub, fighter versus fighter.


Keep on dreaming !
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
Foreverwar like the US does is a failure.


Forever war does waist resources. It also does provide real world experience for the human resource that training and excersises can not simulate.

This extra experience is critical during the first stages of the war that allow you to retain more experience soldier for the rest of the war.

bt
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:54 pm

bikerthai wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Foreverwar like the US does is a failure.


Forever war does waist resources. It also does provide real world experience for the human resource that training and excersises can not simulate.

This extra experience is critical during the first stages of the war that allow you to retain more experience soldier for the rest of the war.

bt


geil

devastating the world with war for to be ready for war.

perfect reason for starting a witchhunt on those "warers"
 
johns624
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:04 pm

WIederling wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Foreverwar like the US does is a failure.


Forever war does waist resources. It also does provide real world experience for the human resource that training and excersises can not simulate.

This extra experience is critical during the first stages of the war that allow you to retain more experience soldier for the rest of the war.

bt


geil

devastating the world with war for to be ready for war.

perfect reason for starting a witchhunt on those "warers"
Have you ever said anything pro-US? Hatred of anything leads to a poor life.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:08 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
In the Gulf War (2003), the Iraqis fired over 1,600 SAMs. They shot down one fixed wing fighter and six helicopters.

How would a modern SAM system do, in 2021?


They shot down a lot more than 1 fighter.
 
GDB
Posts: 14408
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:15 pm

The first two posts read like an exercise in surrealism.

Who won? Eventually ISIS, who were formed after the previously excluded (by the Iraqi regime), Tribal Chiefs were gifted cash and weapons by the US in the 2007 surge, itself a desperate measure to stem an insurgency out of control, which was never accounted for in US planning.
When the Chiefs and their forces and had done their work, the installed Iraq regime had no use to them, so they joined up with their previous enemies of Al Queada in Iraq (something that did not even exist before the invasion), to create ISIS.

Some victory.

And who needs SAM's when you have missions like this based on poor intel and overconfidence;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

The biggest SAM threat to Coalition aircraft in 2003 turned out to be US Patriots.
Last edited by GDB on Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:15 pm

johns624 wrote:
WIederling wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
This extra experience is critical during the first stages of the war that allow you to retain more experience soldier for the rest of the war.

bt

geil
devastating the world with war for to be ready for war.
perfect reason for starting a witchhunt on those "warers"

Have you ever said anything pro-US? Hatred of anything leads to a poor life.

This is a cause and effect thing, isn't it? there is no hate in it. only observation.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:36 pm

seahawk wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
In the Gulf War (2003), the Iraqis fired over 1,600 SAMs. They shot down one fixed wing fighter and six helicopters.

How would a modern SAM system do, in 2021?


They shot down a lot more than 1 fighter.


Why do you think that?

I see two shot down, one by a Roland missile and the other by not-listed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ietnam_War
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:39 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The US now has over 600 stealth aircraft so they would probably suffer no casualties and the war would be over in a fraction of the time. They also operate helicopters differently so they probably would not have any casualties.

I think the US is now at the point where their military could take on the entire world combined and still win. They so severely downplay their capability to continue to get funding. The US has so many black programs while the rest of the world is struggling to field capabilities the US had 20 years ago.

In the first gulf war I would say the US was 100 times more powerful than Iraq. A huge army does not mean much these days. Today I think the US is 100 times more powerful than China. With 100+ stealth fighters entering service each year they are easily maintaining this massive lead.

The reason why I say 100 times more powerful is because if any particular weapon system is slightly more advanced than the enemy it often results in an extremely large kill ratio difference. Attack sub versus attack sub, fighter versus fighter.



Just to be clear .. the allied forces were just over 300,000 people and the Iraqi Army was about 600,000 men. According to you, had it been 60,000,000 men that would have bean a fair fight.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:39 pm

So .. the question was about the effectiveness of SAMs in 2021.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:58 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
In the Gulf War (2003), the Iraqis fired over 1,600 SAMs. They shot down one fixed wing fighter and six helicopters.

How would a modern SAM system do, in 2021?


They shot down a lot more than 1 fighter.


Why do you think that?

I see two shot down, one by a Roland missile and the other by not-listed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ietnam_War


Seriously?
 
johns624
Posts: 4238
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:07 pm

I think some people are mixing up Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom when it comes to aircraft losses.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:19 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
In the Gulf War (2003)

The Gulf War was in 1991 and 75 aircraft were shot down. Also known as Desert Storm.

2003 was the Iraq war also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Very few SAM systems were left after the Gulf War.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:51 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
In the Gulf War (2003)

The Gulf War was in 1991 and 75 aircraft were shot down. Also known as Desert Storm.

2003 was the Iraq war also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Very few SAM systems were left after the Gulf War.


I mean the thing in 2003, when 1,600 SAMs were fired and 1 plane and 6 helicopters were shot down. Thanks for the correction.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:24 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I mean the thing in 2003, when 1,600 SAMs were fired and 1 plane and 6 helicopters were shot down. Thanks for the correction.

Too many older radar guided systems in the Iraqi inventory for which the US and Coalition partners had effective EW tactics as well as precision guided weapons which removed the need for low level attacks to improve accuracy. Once you take the aircraft out of low level you remove the main threat which is AAA and IR SAMS.

So the answer to your question, at least for 2003, was tactics (EW and weapons employment) and older Iraqi SAM technology being the distinguisher.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:30 pm

Ozair wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I mean the thing in 2003, when 1,600 SAMs were fired and 1 plane and 6 helicopters were shot down. Thanks for the correction.

Too many older radar guided systems in the Iraqi inventory for which the US and Coalition partners had effective EW tactics as well as precision guided weapons which removed the need for low level attacks to improve accuracy. Once you take the aircraft out of low level you remove the main threat which is AAA and IR SAMS.

So the answer to your question, at least for 2003, was tactics (EW and weapons employment) and older Iraqi SAM technology being the distinguisher.


O.K.

So imagine it's 2021, and Iraq has a modern SAM system. But the allies use correct tactics for this new situation. How many allied planes are lost, and how effective is close air support given this new situation?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:35 pm

Ok, how many? You posed the hypothetical, answer it because no one will know until combat erupts. It’s a guess, likely an uneducated one. We don’t know the specifics of the Iraqi tactics, training, equipment state. Maybe similar to 2003, maybe a disaster like the IAF in the opening days on the 1973 war.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:06 am

kitplane01 wrote:
O.K.
So imagine it's 2021, and Iraq has a modern SAM system. But the allies use correct tactics for this new situation. How many allied planes are lost, and how effective is close air support given this new situation?

Agree with GalaxyFlyers response, it really isn’t something we can state with any certainty. The USAF says they can operate in high end IADS with 5th gen aircraft and with a lot of support 4th gen aircraft, the French claim the Rafale can too and the Gripen folk are in wonderland while the Russians say their S-400s/500s are beasts and will down any aircraft that comes near them irrespective of generation. If it is any consideration, the USAF and partners train in Red Flag for these exact types of scenarios, complex IADS large force engagement and do it regularly.

If you look at Vietnam, then GW1, Bosnia, Libya (for what it is worth), Syria and finally Israeli operations over the last 10 years it isn’t clear that SAM systems are the ultimate aircraft killer they are claimed to be…. but … NATO always expected to take casualties in a World War Three Europe air confrontation and that was the point of stealth developments, to break that cycle of SAM improvements.

The other thing to remember is that modern Air Forces are very risk averse. World War Two Bomber fleets couldn’t sustain mission loss rates above 5% indefinitely and in GW1 the Coalition transitioned from low level cold war style attacks to medium level bombing to get out of the IR SAM and AAA threat as losses were going to be unsustainable. Even today were there a conflict over for example North Korea I expect the AAA threat for any aircraft operating below 20k would be significantly higher than the Radar guided SAM threat.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:49 am

I think the answer the original poster is after something specific like this:

A 2020 5th gen aircraft is less likely to get shot down by a 2020 SAM system compared to a 1980 4th gen aircraft getting shot down by a 1980 SAM system.

SAM systems are slightly reducing in threat. Stealth has made a very big difference. The US has around 10 times as many stealth jets compared to the rest of the world combined. You could throw thousands of the worlds 3rd and 4th gen aircraft at the F-22 fleet and I doubt you would lose a single F-22.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:25 am

And not only the jets. Modern first strike weapons like cruise missiles have much better resolution, satellite mapping and real time targeting that would reduce the AA opposition more effectively.

bt
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the answer the original poster is after something specific like this:

A 2020 5th gen aircraft is less likely to get shot down by a 2020 SAM system compared to a 1980 4th gen aircraft getting shot down by a 1980 SAM system.

SAM systems are slightly reducing in threat. Stealth has made a very big difference. The US has around 10 times as many stealth jets compared to the rest of the world combined. You could throw thousands of the worlds 3rd and 4th gen aircraft at the F-22 fleet and I doubt you would lose a single F-22.


Now consider something like an A-10, F-16 or Apache. It would seem like none of these could survive a modern IADS and yet they did survive what Iraq had. 1600 missiles launched and only 7 aircraft downed is beyond ineffective. I understand the Iraqis had problems but a 0.4% kill rate is ...

Question: would you expect a significantly better kill rate with the missiles from 2020? To read Viper Pilot by Dan Hampton, when a missile is fired at you all you have to do is pull significant Gs with a decoy deployed and its guaranteed to miss. You can bet your life on it repeatedly.

I’m sure a modern missile is better than an SA2 or SA3. But electronic countermeasures have also improved.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 7:43 am

You are missing the basic problem. It would not be a near-peer conflict and the disparity in capability would still be gigantic. The US would always be capable of flooding the air defences of a country like Iraq. The number of cruise missiles alone would probably flood such a system.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:01 am

seahawk wrote:
You are missing the basic problem. It would not be a near-peer conflict and the disparity in capability would still be gigantic. The US would always be capable of flooding the air defences of a country like Iraq. The number of cruise missiles alone would probably flood such a system.


Outcome:
They won every engagement but lost all (recent) wars.
( judged on objectives made public not on any hidden agenda.)
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:10 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Question: would you expect a significantly better kill rate with the missiles from 2020?

Much much better. Against an F-16 the missiles in 1980 would have had a single digit percentage chance of hitting it. They were easy to fool with a decoy and the mobile systens lacked energy in the final stages to hit a medium altitude fighter capable of pulling high G.

Against missiles from 2020 there is a single digit percentage chance of the F-16 NOT getting hit. The missiles will not be fooled by a decoy and mobile systems now have more energy/range to maneuver against a high G medium altitude fighter.

4th gen aircraft would get absolutely decimated if they flew over a modern battlefield. They would have to fly secondary roles such as escorting tankers.l

The A-10 is probably the only aircraft that is still unchanged. The newer missiles warhead have become smaller, less powerful but more accurate. The A-10 is even more likely to survive a direct hit. Attrition rate would still be high but it could cross the enemy front line and cause massive destruction.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:37 am

bikerthai wrote:
And not only the jets. Modern first strike weapons like cruise missiles have much better resolution, satellite mapping and real time targeting that would reduce the AA opposition more effectively.

bt

On the other hand, modern SAM systems like the Israeli Iron Dome have become much better at engaging small non-maneuvering targets.

Then we have AAA which was neglected for many decades in favor of small missile systems but has gained interest again recently as a way to defend yourself against small UAV and cruise missiles.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:55 am

Jammers , RWRs, data links and decoys also went through further development, the weapons became a lot more advanced and smart stand-off guided systems are common.

So in the end you will again look at a clash of integrated systems, the air defence system against the attacker. And there we are back to same basics as 30 or 40 years ago. If the attacker is able to put holes into the air defence bubble, the attacker wins. Today you would not open the fight with manned systems, regardless of which generation. It would be drones and missiles targeting the air defence system´s nodes, early warning systems and known SAM sites. Once the early warning radars are down, the SAM sites have the option to radiate or not. If they do, they give away the position and become targets. If the don´t, they will have a hard time engaging targets. Add things like air deployed loitering munitions or the Golden Horde idea and the generation of the planes matters constantly less. The Armenian conflict showed this very clearly. Sure 5th gen. planes make executing the SEAD/DEAD mission easier, as the engagenment bubbles of the systems shrink, but as more and more SAMs have fall back optical or IR targeting systems, even 5th gen. planes can not ignore them, much less when integrated into an air defence system that also uses long-wave radars.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:06 am

mxaxai wrote:
Then we have AAA which was neglected for many decades in favor of small missile systems.


Add to that: lasers. They are a when, not an if, have essentially unlimited magazines so can be fired at just about any momentary blip on the radar/other sensor with essentially zero reaction time between detection and a burning wreck falling from the sky.

best regards
Thomas
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:01 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Add to that: lasers. They are a when, not an if, have essentially unlimited magazines

That is sadly not the case. Especially very high power lasers still run into problems with cooling, energy supply or simply degradation of the laser diode per use*. They are also very susceptible to dirt accumulation on the optics. Clouds are a problem as well.

So there's a limit on how often you can use the laser before needing maintenance, and there's also a limit on how quickly you can fire in succession. Beam divergence and control-loop issues limit your range, as do obstacles and clouds.

I think you can see DEW replace the role of traditional AAA for point defense against mortars, UAV, missiles or helicopters, comparable to CIWS. I doubt that they'll ever have the range to replace systems like the S-400 or Patriot.

*I suppose the impact depends on how much you want to use it. It's definitely cheaper and longer-lasting than traditional missiles or guns.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:45 pm

mxaxai wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Add to that: lasers. They are a when, not an if, have essentially unlimited magazines

That is sadly not the case. Especially very high power lasers still run into problems with cooling, energy supply or simply degradation of the laser diode per use*..


That is why i put "essentially". You also don´t have to pump out multiple megajoule every time you think you have a target, but can probe with a lower powered beam and ramp up to full the moment you get a return. If you use longer wavelength radar to detect LO targets you might have to do that anyways to pinpoint the target based on the somewhat fuzzy target location that yields.

best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:58 pm

mxaxai wrote:
On the other hand, modern SAM systems like the Israeli Iron Dome have become much better at engaging small non-maneuvering targets.


Non-maneuvering as in ballistic missiles and rockets.

Cruise missile in open terrain may be easy targets, but in an urban environment or hilly regions, you only have a small window to shoot up.

Then there's the new generation of low observable air-ground stand-off missiles . . .

There is less need to expose yourself to these SAM im the initial stages. Doctrine will still dictate you do not send in vulnerable aircraft until the SAM sites are degraded. The least vulnerable SAM sites are the mobile launchers. With space based radar and real time imaging and massive computation power, these launchers should be located faster.

Comparing results by merely restricting to missiles vs aircraft will miss the point completely. You have to look at the total capability and tactics.

bt
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8576
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:48 pm

WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
You are missing the basic problem. It would not be a near-peer conflict and the disparity in capability would still be gigantic. The US would always be capable of flooding the air defences of a country like Iraq. The number of cruise missiles alone would probably flood such a system.


Outcome:
They won every engagement but lost all (recent) wars.
( judged on objectives made public not on any hidden agenda.)


You’re missing the difference between the military outcome and political objective. The militaries were assigned goals—depose Saddam, get rid of Qaddafi, defeat the Taliban leadership in Kabul, stop the Serbs in Kosovo. Job done, politicians get involved and defeat ensues. War is famously “politics by other means”; we’re discussing military hardware, not political outcomes. An argument can be made the Western allies lost WW II in 1945, letting totalitarian Stalin win in Eastern Europe, only to eventually win in ‘89.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:17 am

RJMAZ wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Question: would you expect a significantly better kill rate with the missiles from 2020?

Much much better. Against an F-16 the missiles in 1980 would have had a single digit percentage chance of hitting it. They were easy to fool with a decoy and the mobile systens lacked energy in the final stages to hit a medium altitude fighter capable of pulling high G.
.


I don’t know why you think that. In 2003, it was 1600 missiles fired for 7 hits. Way under “single digit percent”. It’s about 0.5%
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:19 am

bikerthai wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
On the other hand, modern SAM systems like the Israeli Iron Dome have become much better at engaging small non-maneuvering targets.


Non-maneuvering as in ballistic missiles and rockets.

Cruise missile in open terrain may be easy targets, but in an urban environment or hilly regions, you only have a small window to shoot up.

Then there's the new generation of low observable air-ground stand-off missiles . . .

There is less need to expose yourself to these SAM im the initial stages. Doctrine will still dictate you do not send in vulnerable aircraft until the SAM sites are degraded. The least vulnerable SAM sites are the mobile launchers. With space based radar and real time imaging and massive computation power, these launchers should be located faster.

Comparing results by merely restricting to missiles vs aircraft will miss the point completely. You have to look at the total capability and tactics.

bt


OK. Compare systems. How do you think it would go in 2021? Will a10s be able to roam the battlefield?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:24 am

seahawk wrote:
Jammers , RWRs, data links and decoys also went through further development, the weapons became a lot more advanced and smart stand-off guided systems are common.

So in the end you will again look at a clash of integrated systems, the air defence system against the attacker. And there we are back to same basics as 30 or 40 years ago. If the attacker is able to put holes into the air defence bubble, the attacker wins. Today you would not open the fight with manned systems, regardless of which generation. It would be drones and missiles targeting the air defence system´s nodes, early warning systems and known SAM sites. Once the early warning radars are down, the SAM sites have the option to radiate or not. If they do, they give away the position and become targets. If the don´t, they will have a hard time engaging targets. Add things like air deployed loitering munitions or the Golden Horde idea and the generation of the planes matters constantly less. The Armenian conflict showed this very clearly. Sure 5th gen. planes make executing the SEAD/DEAD mission easier, as the engagenment bubbles of the systems shrink, but as more and more SAMs have fall back optical or IR targeting systems, even 5th gen. planes can not ignore them, much less when integrated into an air defence system that also uses long-wave radars.

OK. I believe all that. The question is how has the new technology changed the balance. Will Apaches and such be able roam the battlefield. Will everything non stealthy just become a target. Or is every radiating SAM site dead on day one. And if so how do aircraft fare against IR guided SAM systems.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:19 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I don’t know why you think that. In 2003, it was 1600 missiles fired for 7 hits. Way under “single digit percent”. It’s about 0.5%

Yes but when we are talking about missiles from 1980 we are talking heavy long range high altitude systems combined with mobile medium range medium altitude systems and smaller man portable low altitude systems. This covers all altitudes giving fighters no place to hide.

Iraq had most of the larger systems destroyed in the first Gulf War and no one was selling them new equipment. So in the 2003 Iraq war there were only a handful of medium range systems and mostly low altitude systems. The fast fighters can easily operate at altitudes where it is safe. You'll probably find the majority of the missiles fired were low altitude systems firing at an aircraft beyond maximum range and or altitude.

All of the kills will be from missiles fired well within their maximum range and or altitude.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:29 am

kitplane01 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Jammers , RWRs, data links and decoys also went through further development, the weapons became a lot more advanced and smart stand-off guided systems are common.

So in the end you will again look at a clash of integrated systems, the air defence system against the attacker. And there we are back to same basics as 30 or 40 years ago. If the attacker is able to put holes into the air defence bubble, the attacker wins. Today you would not open the fight with manned systems, regardless of which generation. It would be drones and missiles targeting the air defence system´s nodes, early warning systems and known SAM sites. Once the early warning radars are down, the SAM sites have the option to radiate or not. If they do, they give away the position and become targets. If the don´t, they will have a hard time engaging targets. Add things like air deployed loitering munitions or the Golden Horde idea and the generation of the planes matters constantly less. The Armenian conflict showed this very clearly. Sure 5th gen. planes make executing the SEAD/DEAD mission easier, as the engagenment bubbles of the systems shrink, but as more and more SAMs have fall back optical or IR targeting systems, even 5th gen. planes can not ignore them, much less when integrated into an air defence system that also uses long-wave radars.

OK. I believe all that. The question is how has the new technology changed the balance. Will Apaches and such be able roam the battlefield. Will everything non stealthy just become a target. Or is every radiating SAM site dead on day one. And if so how do aircraft fare against IR guided SAM systems.


The balance changes constantly. A Pantysr might be really deadly against a AH-64, but it might simply ignore a Harop. If you have something like a Harop the Pantsyr is no problem, if you do not, it is a problem. Luckily we have not seen the newest and best SAM systems fight against the newest and best aircraft. If you look at conflicts like Iraq 2003, with one side being a global superpower with latest technology and the other being a smaller country with mostly 2-3 decades old systems, it is clear who wins.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:23 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
OK. Compare systems. How do you think it would go in 2021? Will a10s be able to roam the battlefield?


As close air support for front line ground forces? Yes with the following assumptions:

Enemy SAM (other than man pad) would be heavily degraded or non-existent near the front line by the time the ground forces move forward.

"Scud hunting" will be done by drones, F-35's and B-52 with stand-offs.

Unlike a modern army (Chinese, Russian), where where large caliber SAMs are integrated with the ground forces, SAMs for countries like Iran are used to protect infrastructure. So if your strategy is limit your attack on infrastructure and SAM sites using stealth and stand-offs, then you can reduce your losses.

Note that it also means you need to have sufficient stockpile of the stand offs to do the job. These are the things you should think about besides the capability of any one SAM system or any one stealth aircraft.

bt
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:59 pm

Even the F-15's would be effective aa part of the "system". If you heard the Fighter Podcast about the F-15, you can see that you can send in flights of F-15's at high altitude and dare the SAMs to launch at them knowing that if loaded just with AA, the 15's have a good chance at dodging those missiles. Mean while every SAM launch would expose the sites to attack from F-35's.

bt
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:38 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Even the F-15's would be effective aa part of the "system". If you heard the Fighter Podcast about the F-15, you can see that you can send in flights of F-15's at high altitude and dare the SAMs to launch at them knowing that if loaded just with AA, the 15's have a good chance at dodging those missiles. Mean while every SAM launch would expose the sites to attack from F-35's.

bt


It's not obvious that an F-15 at high altitude can dodge an incoming modern missile. Of course it was not obvious that in 2003 the missile kill rate would be 0.5%.

But trading a SAM radar for an F-15 is a good deal for the ground forces.

This sort of thing makes me favor the F-35 over the F-15, even if the F-35 has a higher operating costs (which hopefully will come down).
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:47 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious that an F-15 at high altitude can dodge an incoming modern missile.


The purpose is to trigger the missile launch. Once a lock is detected, you can hit the afterburner and leave the area. From high altitude, you have a better chance to survive.

And the trade is not one for one for the radar. You are probably looking a dozens of missiles to even have a chance to get close to the fleeing F-15 with all the countermeasures.

Mean while your missile sites including the missile launchers will now be under F-35 attack.

F-35 would not work well as decoy.

bt
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:11 am

bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious that an F-15 at high altitude can dodge an incoming modern missile.


The purpose is to trigger the missile launch. Once a lock is detected, you can hit the afterburner and leave the area. From high altitude, you have a better chance to survive.

And the trade is not one for one for the radar. You are probably looking a dozens of missiles to even have a chance to get close to the fleeing F-15 with all the countermeasures.

Mean while your missile sites including the missile launchers will now be under F-35 attack.

F-35 would not work well as decoy.

bt



This sounds like a strategy that requires the other side to be dumb. If you fire a missile at a range such that it can be avoided, and keep your radar on for long enough to get hit ....

It seems like the counter to this is obvious. Don't fire until the F-15 is close enough to be killed. Also, shoot-and-scoot. Also, radar goes on, get a snapshot, and if nothing is to be shot at, turn it off and scoot.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:46 am

kitplane01 wrote:
It seems like the counter to this is obvious. Don't fire until the F-15 is close enough to be killed. Also, shoot-and-scoot. Also, radar goes on, get a snapshot, and if nothing is to be shot at, turn it off and scoot.

But if you let them get too close, they might drop some explosives on the target that you're protecting. Glide bombs or cruise missiles can be released from quite a distance.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 4268
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:31 am

And that is the point, if the SAM do not fire then the mission is a success. The longer you don't fire the more chances you'll fet discovered and hit by other weapons, cruise missiles, F-35s, etc.

bt
 
Ozair
Posts: 5582
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:51 am

bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious that an F-15 at high altitude can dodge an incoming modern missile.


The purpose is to trigger the missile launch. Once a lock is detected, you can hit the afterburner and leave the area. From high altitude, you have a better chance to survive.

And the trade is not one for one for the radar. You are probably looking a dozens of missiles to even have a chance to get close to the fleeing F-15 with all the countermeasures.

Just so it is clear, SAMs and AAMs for that matter, have a no escape zone which broadly means if the target is inside that region then the missile kinematicly has the capability to intercept the aircraft no matter what the aircraft does. Obviously the size of that zone changes depending on aircraft type. The missile would still be prone to defeat via EW, chaff or flares or a final evasive manoeuvre. The context around no escape zones is that the doctrinal training of most SAM operators would be to only fire when a target is within the no escape zone and likely to fire two missiles at a time (munition stocks permitting), meaning unless you are really confident on either their doctrine or your capabilities it isn’t a great idea.

Hence not sure I would like to be in the F-15 being used as a decoy. Far better to use a MALD or other unmanned platform to do that role… Alternatively track the offending target via other means, ELINT or SAR mapping or ?? and transfer that targeting data to the F-35s.

kitplane01 wrote:

This sounds like a strategy that requires the other side to be dumb. If you fire a missile at a range such that it can be avoided, and keep your radar on for long enough to get hit ....

It seems like the counter to this is obvious. Don't fire until the F-15 is close enough to be killed. Also, shoot-and-scoot. Also, radar goes on, get a snapshot, and if nothing is to be shot at, turn it off and scoot.

Agree as explained above. It is a cat and mouse game though with each side having measures and countermeasures, whether electronic or real with decoys etc. The key point remains though that so far in history, except for a few rare instances such as 1973 Yom Kippur War, the aircraft has generally been more successful than the SAM system. If you take Yom Kippur as an example, ten years later the Israelis decimated the Syrian SAM network. Israel knew their enemy, the capabilities they had to defeat and developed tactics and equipment that allowed them to defeat the network.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 2072
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:14 am

mxaxai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
It seems like the counter to this is obvious. Don't fire until the F-15 is close enough to be killed. Also, shoot-and-scoot. Also, radar goes on, get a snapshot, and if nothing is to be shot at, turn it off and scoot.

But if you let them get too close, they might drop some explosives on the target that you're protecting. Glide bombs or cruise missiles can be released from quite a distance.


This sounds like a technology competition. If the airborne weapon has a greater range you’ve lost a technology competition.

Yes I’m aware the airborne missile starts with a kinematic advantage. But the ground based missile can be heavier. And since a ground based launcher costs so much less than a modern fighter the missile can cost more too.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Gulf War SAMs

Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:00 am

kitplane01 wrote:
But the ground based missile can be heavier. And since a ground based launcher costs so much less than a modern fighter the missile can cost more too.


And with the advent, well resurgence, of air breathing missiles it doesn´t need to be heavy either. Put a meteor missile on an Aster 15 Booster and you got a SAM with a 100km no escape zone that can get targeting data from just about any fighter in the area. No continent ground radar to pound on either.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos