Another good example of how show a technically complex issue in a readable and informative way. If only a fraction of the so-called journalists and “experten” may follow the lead... (yeah, I’m daydreaming).
Question: Can any of SAMs available to Ukraine (or AA missile launched from F-16) intercept Kh-22 missile while it is still cruising at high altitude (before it started falling onto the target like a ballistic missile) ?
Essentially, the Kh-22 is designed to outfly and/or overfly air defence systems (including SAMs) - by it sheer speed and altitude of operation.
Thus, there are very few air-to-air missiles that can intercept it (IF with 'AA' you mean air-to-air): currently, Ukraine has no such missiles in service.
Yes, initially I posted this question under that post. Actually, it was the picture of Kh-22 flight profile that made me ask about it - it looked somewhat vulnerable while in phases 4 and 5.
I know Ukraine currently does not have suitable air-to-air missiles, but I was wondering if F-16 is capable of using one of these "very few ones".
Theoretically - if properly positioned, at a suitable flight altitude and speed - an AIM-120C-armed F-16AM could shot down the Kh-22.
To make sure: it's not like the PSU is not trying. It even has hit a few of Kh-22s - for example by Buks.
However, the Kh-22 is coming down at such a speed, that even when 'shot down'... well, you've seen the carnage a downed Kh-22 has caused, last Januar in Dnipro... Originally, that missile was aiming for a transformator station about 500m away from the building its wreckage has demolished...
Yes, unfortunately, shooting KH-22 down when the engine is off and it starts "free-falling" still causes damage from debris. That's why I was thinking about intercepting it when it flies still with engine on, somewhere above the fields far from cities.
So, let's hope we'll get AIM-120C in addition to F-16.
I have to wonder how hard it would be to retrofit SM-2 Standard missiles onto ground launchers? They were meant to hit Kh-22s coming at carrier groups. Should be thousands in NATO stocks, lots coming close to or beyond their use-by date.
Might just be propaganda effort from the Ukrainians, but one theory for the RF claiming that the shootdowns were accidental friendly fire is for the morale of Russian aircrew who have to continue flying into the spaces where the shootdowns occurred.
Of course: the VKS is meanwhile in bad shape, has suffered heavy losses, aircraft are worn out, crews are tired - and the war is going nowhere. Thus, the issue of morale is important.
However, lying to own crews about reasons for their losses is never a good idea. It results in yet more losses.
The way I know the VKS people (and I happen to know a few), this is simply not the way they're running their business.
....and, what are 'Fighter Bomber' and other of Putin's PRBS-industrialists excrementing for PR-purposes - is a different pair of shoes.
I normally read the emails only, but wanted to come on here to thank you for your fantastic updates on the war, in my view they are simply the best out there..
"his serves the purpose of continuously tracking the target and thus – through echoes of its radar emissions from the target – guiding its missiles towards them. In military jargon, this method of guidance is called ‘semi-active radar homing’"
That is not accurate Tom. PAC-2 is TVM, not Semi-active . A mix between SARH and Command Guidance. So technically could operate without Radar Lock from AN/MPQ-53 and only later getting the lock from it.
Cool, that keeps my pet theory alive - that the Ukrainians simply triangulated the A-50's location through its massive emissions and lobbed a missile just close enough for an onboard seeker to get a lock. Maybe added in an S-300 radar for confusion effect or to let the PAC-2 get course corrections before its own radar went live.
Sure but... if I now start explaining the TVM too... I'll have lots of readers waving white flags. Have mercy with people, please: over 90% of readers here are introduced to SAMs through articles like this one. ;-)
Hmm, wasn't HOJ used by the Iranian against Soviet MiG-25BMs as stated in your book IIWITA 1980-88? I don't have it handy now, but I believe that the Iranian used either AIM-54As or MIM-23B in HOJ mode. Or is this outdated? Kind regards, Sander
Hallo Tom, deine posts, erklärungen, gedankenspiele "was wäre wenn" u.ä. eines kriegsgeschehens-analysten-profis, ist ein echter lesegenuss für einen abissl technik-Laien für militärische/kriegssachen))
Tom, thanks again for a great write up. Who keeps track of all the mods to these systems? Is it the manufacturer or individual militaries? Thanks again.
Is it possible that no Patriot radar was used at all, that the plane approximate coordinates were manually input into the system from another source - satellite, NATO, ...
The Ukrainians circulated a video file showing several planes flying above the sea of Azov (FlightRadar style), but didn't mentioned the source of the tracking.
Nice analysis. Only comment I'd make is that we can't know all the tricks operators may have up their sleeves with respect to getting a missile close enough to the target to take it down.
I still think the lack of Moscow showing Patriot wreckage from the Belgorod bushwhack indicates a Patriot radar working with S-300 launchers. Meanwhile the ruscist claims of seeing S-300 radars flip on before the A-50 went down could indicate the reverse configuration - S-300 spotting for a PAC-2.
Signals are signals, and clever engineers can figure out crosswalks. The EW battles are one of the (for obvious reasons) under-covered aspects of this fight. I'd say that the failure to totally destroy the IL-22 partnered with the A-50 makes a home-on-jam shot more likely, as its signals ought to be weaker and more difficult to pinpoint.
Regardless, Ukraine is taking all the necessary steps to establishing an air denial bubble over southwest Kherson. Now, if those French Hammer rocket-assisted bombs be delivered to the crossings over the Crimea canal often enough to cut logistics to the Dnipro front....
Yes, the EW battle is neither ever properly explained, nor even attracting public attention. After all, it's all 'just few guys sitting in a darkened cabin and playing with their toys...' ;-)
And now we have one more downed jet with even more questions about its cargo!
Постою послушаю.
I dont get why it's important to know details about shot down IL few days ago.
Invasion army takes responsibility for starting the war. No attack on Ukraine - no calualties would happened.
Also, orcs cannot be trusted. How can you spend a second trust anything from their mouth
Another good example of how show a technically complex issue in a readable and informative way. If only a fraction of the so-called journalists and “experten” may follow the lead... (yeah, I’m daydreaming).
Thanks again, Tom.
Oh, thanks a lot!
Question: Can any of SAMs available to Ukraine (or AA missile launched from F-16) intercept Kh-22 missile while it is still cruising at high altitude (before it started falling onto the target like a ballistic missile) ?
AFAIK: nope. That would require something in the class of the SM-6 or THAAD.
Oh, these are expensive as hell... I bet it is more likely that RF will run out of Kh-22 before Ukraine will get any of these two :(
But Kh-22 is a pretty large target - can't it be engaged by a AA missile from an intercepting plane at high altitude?
Have tried to explain this here:
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-4-january-2024-q-and
Essentially, the Kh-22 is designed to outfly and/or overfly air defence systems (including SAMs) - by it sheer speed and altitude of operation.
Thus, there are very few air-to-air missiles that can intercept it (IF with 'AA' you mean air-to-air): currently, Ukraine has no such missiles in service.
Yes, initially I posted this question under that post. Actually, it was the picture of Kh-22 flight profile that made me ask about it - it looked somewhat vulnerable while in phases 4 and 5.
I know Ukraine currently does not have suitable air-to-air missiles, but I was wondering if F-16 is capable of using one of these "very few ones".
Theoretically - if properly positioned, at a suitable flight altitude and speed - an AIM-120C-armed F-16AM could shot down the Kh-22.
To make sure: it's not like the PSU is not trying. It even has hit a few of Kh-22s - for example by Buks.
However, the Kh-22 is coming down at such a speed, that even when 'shot down'... well, you've seen the carnage a downed Kh-22 has caused, last Januar in Dnipro... Originally, that missile was aiming for a transformator station about 500m away from the building its wreckage has demolished...
Yes, unfortunately, shooting KH-22 down when the engine is off and it starts "free-falling" still causes damage from debris. That's why I was thinking about intercepting it when it flies still with engine on, somewhere above the fields far from cities.
So, let's hope we'll get AIM-120C in addition to F-16.
I have to wonder how hard it would be to retrofit SM-2 Standard missiles onto ground launchers? They were meant to hit Kh-22s coming at carrier groups. Should be thousands in NATO stocks, lots coming close to or beyond their use-by date.
AIM-54 was one of them ...
Might just be propaganda effort from the Ukrainians, but one theory for the RF claiming that the shootdowns were accidental friendly fire is for the morale of Russian aircrew who have to continue flying into the spaces where the shootdowns occurred.
Of course: the VKS is meanwhile in bad shape, has suffered heavy losses, aircraft are worn out, crews are tired - and the war is going nowhere. Thus, the issue of morale is important.
However, lying to own crews about reasons for their losses is never a good idea. It results in yet more losses.
The way I know the VKS people (and I happen to know a few), this is simply not the way they're running their business.
....and, what are 'Fighter Bomber' and other of Putin's PRBS-industrialists excrementing for PR-purposes - is a different pair of shoes.
I normally read the emails only, but wanted to come on here to thank you for your fantastic updates on the war, in my view they are simply the best out there..
Oh, thanks a lot, much appreciated!
Thanks Tom "Top" Cooper, we really appreciate your work
"his serves the purpose of continuously tracking the target and thus – through echoes of its radar emissions from the target – guiding its missiles towards them. In military jargon, this method of guidance is called ‘semi-active radar homing’"
That is not accurate Tom. PAC-2 is TVM, not Semi-active . A mix between SARH and Command Guidance. So technically could operate without Radar Lock from AN/MPQ-53 and only later getting the lock from it.
Cool, that keeps my pet theory alive - that the Ukrainians simply triangulated the A-50's location through its massive emissions and lobbed a missile just close enough for an onboard seeker to get a lock. Maybe added in an S-300 radar for confusion effect or to let the PAC-2 get course corrections before its own radar went live.
The more I think of it, the more I think that yes. They've 'triangulated', then fired 'in good hope'.
Sure but... if I now start explaining the TVM too... I'll have lots of readers waving white flags. Have mercy with people, please: over 90% of readers here are introduced to SAMs through articles like this one. ;-)
SARH is easier to explain true :)
Hmm, wasn't HOJ used by the Iranian against Soviet MiG-25BMs as stated in your book IIWITA 1980-88? I don't have it handy now, but I believe that the Iranian used either AIM-54As or MIM-23B in HOJ mode. Or is this outdated? Kind regards, Sander
Спасибо, Том.
Hallo Tom, deine posts, erklärungen, gedankenspiele "was wäre wenn" u.ä. eines kriegsgeschehens-analysten-profis, ist ein echter lesegenuss für einen abissl technik-Laien für militärische/kriegssachen))
DANKE dir dafür!
💛Ї🩵
🤞✌️
Tom, thanks again for a great write up. Who keeps track of all the mods to these systems? Is it the manufacturer or individual militaries? Thanks again.
Nominally, both the manufacturer (if still around), and the armed service in charge of the program.
A follow up, if I may. Is there any cross over between militaries? And how would that look like?
Yes, of course: at least within NATO, operators are frequently 'communicating'. Exchanging personnel, discussing experiences etc.
Is it possible that no Patriot radar was used at all, that the plane approximate coordinates were manually input into the system from another source - satellite, NATO, ...
The Ukrainians circulated a video file showing several planes flying above the sea of Azov (FlightRadar style), but didn't mentioned the source of the tracking.
Yes, that's possible. Would require some tweaking by operators, but it's possible.
....and yes: 'NATO' was certainly around (see the original article; have posted a link.
This whole ordeal gives me strong vibes of VEGA 31 downing ..
Thank you for the explanation.
Nice analysis. Only comment I'd make is that we can't know all the tricks operators may have up their sleeves with respect to getting a missile close enough to the target to take it down.
I still think the lack of Moscow showing Patriot wreckage from the Belgorod bushwhack indicates a Patriot radar working with S-300 launchers. Meanwhile the ruscist claims of seeing S-300 radars flip on before the A-50 went down could indicate the reverse configuration - S-300 spotting for a PAC-2.
Signals are signals, and clever engineers can figure out crosswalks. The EW battles are one of the (for obvious reasons) under-covered aspects of this fight. I'd say that the failure to totally destroy the IL-22 partnered with the A-50 makes a home-on-jam shot more likely, as its signals ought to be weaker and more difficult to pinpoint.
Regardless, Ukraine is taking all the necessary steps to establishing an air denial bubble over southwest Kherson. Now, if those French Hammer rocket-assisted bombs be delivered to the crossings over the Crimea canal often enough to cut logistics to the Dnipro front....
Yes, the EW battle is neither ever properly explained, nor even attracting public attention. After all, it's all 'just few guys sitting in a darkened cabin and playing with their toys...' ;-)
Excellent explanation for the novice and for those of us who lived that life in a prior incarnation.
I've seen a funny theory on Reddit (no pun intended) that Ukrainians also could've used MALD decoys to bait and lead Russian AA missile into the A-50.
Is that plausible at all?
Yes, of course it is.