Keeping in mind all the ‘details’ I’ve described in the Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this feature, in the Part 4 I would like to offer the first of few examples on how is the air war in Ukraine fought these days.
Up front, if you address me, address me: otherwise I'm not going to feel addressed in the future.
Secondly, this is foremost an attempt to explain a complex topic in a simple way, so that not only 'proffessionals', 'buffs', and 'nerds' understand it.
If that's too little, and too theoretical: there are solutions - and these are not available on either of links you've provided:
- The first is a 'piece of news', discussing something obvious for almost a decade.
- The second is better, but breaking down at tactical level what I've discussed at operational level: I'm not yet that far in my coverage (is to follow in Parts 5 or 6).
If you want 'something from the 1st hand', try stuff of this kind:
Concluding that 'Patriot fired 32 or so missiles in 2 minutes on 16 May' - and that on a basis of video shown perhaps a dozen of missiles fired at about 45 deg, and the rest vertically.... is inventing science fiction.
In this war, that's the job of the Keystone Cops in Moscow.
For your orientation: PAC missiles are fired at 45 degrees. Not vertically into the sky. So, whatever was the 'other 18 missiles' - was no MIM-104.
thank you for the insight of how things work IRL, not in a Hollywood movie. Two slightly related questions:
- is this the same on the frontline from the PSU perspective? After the first few surprise hits with HARM, there are no news about any new successes. Do the Russians work in the same silent mode?
- Probably another few thousand other people has asked you in the past few days about the F-16 delivery decision. I remember well your assessment about why jets shouldn't be on the top of the supply list, but now as they WILL BE there - what can it change? According to the training plan assessment their main role will be air-to-ground missions, not air combat. (no surprise)
Based on what you wrote I assume that beside they can deploy all the western gadgets without tinkering, their presence can be an indirect air defence impact as well. The russians use their S-300 as ballistic missiles regularly - but if there is a new air threat they must revert some of them to their original role. they also can not shoot away a salvo of them being sure that they won't be caught with their pants down. This could - i think - lift some weight off from the Kyiv-like air defenses.
1.) Yes, it's the same. I'll address this in another of 'parts'.
2.) Yesno. Some of their systems do, others do not. It depends on the tactical situation.
3.) I think that nope, nothing's going to change. At least to me, it appears that the number of 'F-16s' the West seems to be ready to deliver after all, and the number the PSU is capable of pressing into service, is insufficient to change the situation to any significant degree. Might address this in an additional part.
4.) By its very nature, the purpose of air power is 'offensive'. That is: to strike enemy.
It's the ground-based air defences that have a 'defensive' purpose.
Correspondingly, the use of 'F-16s' for such purposes like 'easing the burden of ground based air defences'.... sorry, this is not making any sense to me. That's like when the Syrians rushed their air force to the aid of their air defence force in Lebanon of 1982. Arguably, that was not the only reason for the action in question (principal reason was Assad's order to punish the SyAAF for a coup attempt of February 1982), but it ended with a clear-cut defeat.
Regarding the point 4) - maybe I phrased clumsily. I don't think that getting F-16s is with the purpose of easing the burden on the ground defense - they are for ground attack, it's clear from the papers.
But having them could - maybe? - force the russians to allocate more of their S-300s into their original AA roles restricting their use as AG. This may have the effect of easing the burden, even if it wasn't the purpose. Of course all of this depends on how big or limited are the stocks of S-300 missiles and launchers.
I do not think so. AFAIK, if anything in Russia is 'functioning', that's the production of SAMs - especially SAMs for -S-300, S-350, and S-400 SAM-systems. Except the PSU pilots are eager to play SAM-decoys, I doubt even the presence of 100 F-16s would force the Russians to stop deploying their 'S-300s' as ballistic missiles.
....then, even if: they're doing that, actually, quite rarely.
That's the part (ie. the production, resupply side) what I have no idea. Well then nothing else remain than hoping the PSU can find out an inventive task for the new toys until november-december. Even if they say the pilot training can be done in four months, changing for the Gripens here required almost twice as much time for the ground personnel than for the flyboys.
Is the mix of different systems in Ukraine's air defence more of a hindrance (presumably integration and data sharing is harder) than it is an asset (in posing different problems for the attacker) ?
Re. your question: I would say it's obvious that it is not. Crucial is the capability to adapt and integrate new (Western) SAM-systems into the existing IADS. As explained in the Part 3: thanks to their integration ('at strategic level') into the PSU's IADS - probably boasted by the provision of that US-made battle control system - it's no hindrance at all.
Thank you Tom, interesting about the Spetnatz but entirely understandable, i presume the Ukrainians have plenty of the similar going on behind Orc lines.
Thank you Tom! This offers some light and explains lots of questions. This is a profesional mode of waging war, when the MSM writes it's looks that their simply fire missiles because they can withoit purpouse, because "they are stupid".
In West for 99% people info from Ukraine is entertainment. Better than movies and don't need to pay for tickets. Let see how it for ordinary people in the front line. Readers of this nice articles often want more, just read is boring, oh HOW it will be exiting to see by own eyes. Just come to Kherson and you will hear and watch many unforgettable things, get lovely experience.
16 May I heard characteristic/specific whizz from North. Cruise missile can't come from this direction, so this is jet. Less than 1 sec I need to think. - Every Kherson citizen heard both many times. After few seconds 2 jets appeared. They were turning in sharp arc at too low altitude.The far one was so low - I thought he was falling. They were dropping infrared traps every 3-4 sec with characteristic pops. I saw the jet's upper side. One flew just over the **** and approached too fast. Jet came from sun direction, which blind me slightly. I saw the blickle on upper side of it wings. Clearly saw 2 aircraft vertical rudders, slightly inclined. I surprised: they big and how long distance between them. It brought such lovely entertainment, that somebody can wet the trousers. The sound was so........ I thought I will be deaf. A second later he flew just above my head in distance 100 m, literally above head. I alive ... and happy of this fact. It trajectory was not far from chimney *****, and went to East direction. So I think they were 2 russian jets. As we can see, russian jets fly to West of Dnipro river on 10 km.
Thank you Dott. Cooper, it's alwaeys nice to leran something new.
I always thought that the surveillance radar of a sam battery ought to be active much more than it actually is, so I guess hide and seek is the name of the game.
That's one of points about radars: surveillance radar is only necessary to detect the target.
Once the target is acquired, it's assigned to the fire-control radar.
In turn, the fire-control radar only needs to remain 'on' for the duration of the firing action - i.e. the flight time of the missile. That's at least when it comes to semi-active radar guided missiles (like the mass of what is in service with the PSU).
In the case of many of latest SAM-systems - weapons that are firing active radar homing missiles - not even that.
For example: sometimes the last year, a S-400 SAM-site of the VKS shot down a PSU fighter-bomber from a range of 177km. The target was acquired by a mast-mounted fire-control radar. The missile was fired and guided 'in general direction of the target', until it activated its own seeker head. From that point onwards, the SAM-site firing it was 'just observers', and turned off its radar. Ceased emitting. The missile did the rest of the job: activated its seeker head, found and tracked the target, and shot it down.
What I thought is that since the target can be highly manoeuvrable, the need for mid-course adjustments imposed a certain amount of "on" time in order to be able to actually score a hit.
Since this is not the case, what comes to mind is that modern missiles are WAY more dangerous than the old ones. Or maybe digital link capabilities can shorten the time needed for course adjustment ?
This is getting more complicated the more I think about it, so I guess the answer is : study more.
Please, no need to address me with 'Dott/Dottore': I've got no academic degree.
Re. 'highly manoeuvreable targets': no aircraft and no missiles are flying hard manoeuvres all the time. At most, an aircraft targeted by a SAM might have one hard turn: if this is not shaking off a SAM locked on, that's it. Similarly, SAMs can't 'dogfight' targets: if they miss at their first turn, they're not coming back to re-attack.
...that said: that all used to work with old, 1st and 2nd generation SAMs. Nowadays, SAMs are travelling so fast, and/or can make 40g turns - so that most of their targets have no chances of avoiding at all.
The MCG is used by most of radar-guided systems. Nowadays, that's functioning on 'time-sharing' basis. For example: if the SAM-site has only one fire-control radar, it can simultaneously guide three missiles at the same target: one in the terminal phase, one in the MCG, and the third is just launched. ....and then even more so: if there are two fire-control radars, the same SAM-site can target two targets with a total of six missiles, etc., etc., etc.
I remember reading MANY years ago about all the "new and exciting stuff" of the brand new Aegis system deployed on Ticonderoga class.
And MCG was indeed a big step forward so the defense system could engage more targets than before where the missile, once off the ramp, needed a dedicated radar for each one of them.
You know, the difficult part of all this is putting it all together in a dynamic environment...
Anyway thanks a lot for taking the time to divulge some common sense to our advantage.
Would like to upgrade to paid, but: "This Connect account cannot currently make live charges. The `requirements.disabled_reason` property on the account will provide information about why this account is currently disabled. If you are a customer trying to make a purchase, please contact the owner of this site. Your transaction has not been processed."
Thanks for # 4 Tom, its getting some what clearer now and I can see how the Russians try to overwhelm the air defense system, the Ukrainians definitely need nerves of steel training and experience but are proving to be masters of the system. Am I right in thinking the Russians have AWCS planes but do not use them to full effect
Up front, if you address me, address me: otherwise I'm not going to feel addressed in the future.
Secondly, this is foremost an attempt to explain a complex topic in a simple way, so that not only 'proffessionals', 'buffs', and 'nerds' understand it.
If that's too little, and too theoretical: there are solutions - and these are not available on either of links you've provided:
- The first is a 'piece of news', discussing something obvious for almost a decade.
- The second is better, but breaking down at tactical level what I've discussed at operational level: I'm not yet that far in my coverage (is to follow in Parts 5 or 6).
If you want 'something from the 1st hand', try stuff of this kind:
https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/operation-allied-force-volume-2-air-war-over-serbia-1999.php?sid=053930161d60eafaa366ae464140bf00
Concluding that 'Patriot fired 32 or so missiles in 2 minutes on 16 May' - and that on a basis of video shown perhaps a dozen of missiles fired at about 45 deg, and the rest vertically.... is inventing science fiction.
In this war, that's the job of the Keystone Cops in Moscow.
For your orientation: PAC missiles are fired at 45 degrees. Not vertically into the sky. So, whatever was the 'other 18 missiles' - was no MIM-104.
OK, if so, then: where did you get an idea any of these missiles were 'Patriots'....?
Thanks, Tom. This is simply the best thing to do on Sunday morning. Super appreciated.
thank you for the insight of how things work IRL, not in a Hollywood movie. Two slightly related questions:
- is this the same on the frontline from the PSU perspective? After the first few surprise hits with HARM, there are no news about any new successes. Do the Russians work in the same silent mode?
- Probably another few thousand other people has asked you in the past few days about the F-16 delivery decision. I remember well your assessment about why jets shouldn't be on the top of the supply list, but now as they WILL BE there - what can it change? According to the training plan assessment their main role will be air-to-ground missions, not air combat. (no surprise)
Based on what you wrote I assume that beside they can deploy all the western gadgets without tinkering, their presence can be an indirect air defence impact as well. The russians use their S-300 as ballistic missiles regularly - but if there is a new air threat they must revert some of them to their original role. they also can not shoot away a salvo of them being sure that they won't be caught with their pants down. This could - i think - lift some weight off from the Kyiv-like air defenses.
My pleasure.
Regarding your questions:
1.) Yes, it's the same. I'll address this in another of 'parts'.
2.) Yesno. Some of their systems do, others do not. It depends on the tactical situation.
3.) I think that nope, nothing's going to change. At least to me, it appears that the number of 'F-16s' the West seems to be ready to deliver after all, and the number the PSU is capable of pressing into service, is insufficient to change the situation to any significant degree. Might address this in an additional part.
4.) By its very nature, the purpose of air power is 'offensive'. That is: to strike enemy.
It's the ground-based air defences that have a 'defensive' purpose.
Correspondingly, the use of 'F-16s' for such purposes like 'easing the burden of ground based air defences'.... sorry, this is not making any sense to me. That's like when the Syrians rushed their air force to the aid of their air defence force in Lebanon of 1982. Arguably, that was not the only reason for the action in question (principal reason was Assad's order to punish the SyAAF for a coup attempt of February 1982), but it ended with a clear-cut defeat.
Thank you!
Regarding the point 4) - maybe I phrased clumsily. I don't think that getting F-16s is with the purpose of easing the burden on the ground defense - they are for ground attack, it's clear from the papers.
But having them could - maybe? - force the russians to allocate more of their S-300s into their original AA roles restricting their use as AG. This may have the effect of easing the burden, even if it wasn't the purpose. Of course all of this depends on how big or limited are the stocks of S-300 missiles and launchers.
I see.
I do not think so. AFAIK, if anything in Russia is 'functioning', that's the production of SAMs - especially SAMs for -S-300, S-350, and S-400 SAM-systems. Except the PSU pilots are eager to play SAM-decoys, I doubt even the presence of 100 F-16s would force the Russians to stop deploying their 'S-300s' as ballistic missiles.
....then, even if: they're doing that, actually, quite rarely.
That's the part (ie. the production, resupply side) what I have no idea. Well then nothing else remain than hoping the PSU can find out an inventive task for the new toys until november-december. Even if they say the pilot training can be done in four months, changing for the Gripens here required almost twice as much time for the ground personnel than for the flyboys.
Defeating Russia.....that's anything else than easy.
Thank you. Great explanation.
Interesting - and well explained. Thanks Tom.
Is the mix of different systems in Ukraine's air defence more of a hindrance (presumably integration and data sharing is harder) than it is an asset (in posing different problems for the attacker) ?
My pleasure.
Re. your question: I would say it's obvious that it is not. Crucial is the capability to adapt and integrate new (Western) SAM-systems into the existing IADS. As explained in the Part 3: thanks to their integration ('at strategic level') into the PSU's IADS - probably boasted by the provision of that US-made battle control system - it's no hindrance at all.
...actually, your question just reminded me of something related to the Russian IADS and their problems with integration of additional systems. Have told that story in the book Moscow's Game of Poker (https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/moscows-game-of-poker-revised-edition-russian-military-intervention-in-syria-2015-2017.php?sid=9af26dc4a7ef0491e1abb3badf7bf9b5), but, I guess, 'only the usual suspects' have read that one, so it might be necessary to 'repeat the exercise', after all... ;-)
That's the point. Great work! Now i understand. Thanks.
Thanks Tom. So interesting.
Very clear! Txs!! Indeed part 1 and 2 were necessary to get everything!
Thank you Tom, interesting about the Spetnatz but entirely understandable, i presume the Ukrainians have plenty of the similar going on behind Orc lines.
Thank you Tom! This offers some light and explains lots of questions. This is a profesional mode of waging war, when the MSM writes it's looks that their simply fire missiles because they can withoit purpouse, because "they are stupid".
Looking forward Ford the next parts!
Damn, you're good...
In West for 99% people info from Ukraine is entertainment. Better than movies and don't need to pay for tickets. Let see how it for ordinary people in the front line. Readers of this nice articles often want more, just read is boring, oh HOW it will be exiting to see by own eyes. Just come to Kherson and you will hear and watch many unforgettable things, get lovely experience.
16 May I heard characteristic/specific whizz from North. Cruise missile can't come from this direction, so this is jet. Less than 1 sec I need to think. - Every Kherson citizen heard both many times. After few seconds 2 jets appeared. They were turning in sharp arc at too low altitude.The far one was so low - I thought he was falling. They were dropping infrared traps every 3-4 sec with characteristic pops. I saw the jet's upper side. One flew just over the **** and approached too fast. Jet came from sun direction, which blind me slightly. I saw the blickle on upper side of it wings. Clearly saw 2 aircraft vertical rudders, slightly inclined. I surprised: they big and how long distance between them. It brought such lovely entertainment, that somebody can wet the trousers. The sound was so........ I thought I will be deaf. A second later he flew just above my head in distance 100 m, literally above head. I alive ... and happy of this fact. It trajectory was not far from chimney *****, and went to East direction. So I think they were 2 russian jets. As we can see, russian jets fly to West of Dnipro river on 10 km.
Yes, NATO can't deliver everything necessary at the same time, and thus not all the parts of Ukraine are as well-covered by the PSU as Kyiv.
Thank you Dott. Cooper, it's alwaeys nice to leran something new.
I always thought that the surveillance radar of a sam battery ought to be active much more than it actually is, so I guess hide and seek is the name of the game.
That's one of points about radars: surveillance radar is only necessary to detect the target.
Once the target is acquired, it's assigned to the fire-control radar.
In turn, the fire-control radar only needs to remain 'on' for the duration of the firing action - i.e. the flight time of the missile. That's at least when it comes to semi-active radar guided missiles (like the mass of what is in service with the PSU).
In the case of many of latest SAM-systems - weapons that are firing active radar homing missiles - not even that.
For example: sometimes the last year, a S-400 SAM-site of the VKS shot down a PSU fighter-bomber from a range of 177km. The target was acquired by a mast-mounted fire-control radar. The missile was fired and guided 'in general direction of the target', until it activated its own seeker head. From that point onwards, the SAM-site firing it was 'just observers', and turned off its radar. Ceased emitting. The missile did the rest of the job: activated its seeker head, found and tracked the target, and shot it down.
Thanks Dott.Cooper,
What I thought is that since the target can be highly manoeuvrable, the need for mid-course adjustments imposed a certain amount of "on" time in order to be able to actually score a hit.
Since this is not the case, what comes to mind is that modern missiles are WAY more dangerous than the old ones. Or maybe digital link capabilities can shorten the time needed for course adjustment ?
This is getting more complicated the more I think about it, so I guess the answer is : study more.
Please, no need to address me with 'Dott/Dottore': I've got no academic degree.
Re. 'highly manoeuvreable targets': no aircraft and no missiles are flying hard manoeuvres all the time. At most, an aircraft targeted by a SAM might have one hard turn: if this is not shaking off a SAM locked on, that's it. Similarly, SAMs can't 'dogfight' targets: if they miss at their first turn, they're not coming back to re-attack.
...that said: that all used to work with old, 1st and 2nd generation SAMs. Nowadays, SAMs are travelling so fast, and/or can make 40g turns - so that most of their targets have no chances of avoiding at all.
The MCG is used by most of radar-guided systems. Nowadays, that's functioning on 'time-sharing' basis. For example: if the SAM-site has only one fire-control radar, it can simultaneously guide three missiles at the same target: one in the terminal phase, one in the MCG, and the third is just launched. ....and then even more so: if there are two fire-control radars, the same SAM-site can target two targets with a total of six missiles, etc., etc., etc.
Hello Mr. Cooper,
sorry for my mistake.
I remember reading MANY years ago about all the "new and exciting stuff" of the brand new Aegis system deployed on Ticonderoga class.
And MCG was indeed a big step forward so the defense system could engage more targets than before where the missile, once off the ramp, needed a dedicated radar for each one of them.
You know, the difficult part of all this is putting it all together in a dynamic environment...
Anyway thanks a lot for taking the time to divulge some common sense to our advantage.
....yup, and then describing all of that in words.... sigh.... ;-)
Many thanks for your hard work and the crash course in SAMs warfare use. I need to study it carefully indeed.
Great post.
Would like to upgrade to paid, but: "This Connect account cannot currently make live charges. The `requirements.disabled_reason` property on the account will provide information about why this account is currently disabled. If you are a customer trying to make a purchase, please contact the owner of this site. Your transaction has not been processed."
Oh, thanks a lot: was not aware of any such issues. OK, I'll check.
Thanks for # 4 Tom, its getting some what clearer now and I can see how the Russians try to overwhelm the air defense system, the Ukrainians definitely need nerves of steel training and experience but are proving to be masters of the system. Am I right in thinking the Russians have AWCS planes but do not use them to full effect