In Syria

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Iron Dome and Israeli Patriots have the technical capability for data fusion, etc?  I take it that this is a local modification and not extended to US or other Patriot systems?

That is not public information. However, the David's Sling is no longer seen as a replacement for the IDF's Patriot, and the IDF continues to buy additional GEM-T missiles, with no plan to retire the Patriot.

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Which system has more radars available?  I didn't realize that Patriot had anything like the Nobu LF radars in its network. What is Patriot's anti-stealth capabilities at the moment?

That depends on the configuration. Every user can choose to have its batteries composed differently. One can have more radars, another can integrate a whole new radar, another can have double the launchers, etc.

The S-400 system is not homogenous. One battery in one division can have all the available options, and another battery in another division will have half the launchers and only 1 radar. 

The peripheral stuff like Nebo and the mast mounted radar are made as reinforcements and are only available to a select few batteries.

In the same manner, the US can choose to reinforce its Patriot units with an AN/TPY-2 radar from the THAAD.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Here's a Raytheon pamphlet about the Polish systems from around 2015

Not really sure how this addresses anything. What's your point here?

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Off the top, the key system characteristics list includes -

1.  Anti-stealth  

2.  Simultaneous engagement rate.  

3.  360 degree engagement capability 

4.  High PK per engagement.

6.  Long range.

7.  Battlefield data fusion and AD networking.

8.  Robust ECCM capabilities.

9.  Effective system defenses, (active, ECM, and concealment/decoy.

All are capabilities the Patriot has in one form or another.

[glenn239]

19 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That is not public information. However, the David's Sling is no longer seen as a replacement for the IDF's Patriot, and the IDF continues to buy additional GEM-T missiles, with no plan to retire the Patriot.

A quick glance at David's Sling suggests that it's the THAAD to the Patriot.  Makes sense to keep them both.  I also see that the Syrians captured one of the David Sling missiles intact and passed it onto the Russians a few years back.  Curious.

Quote

That depends on the configuration. Every user can choose to have its batteries composed differently. One can have more radars, another can integrate a whole new radar, another can have double the launchers, etc.

Sure, but we are assuming for comparison's sake that both systems are dressed to the max.  What is the Western equivelent to Nebo-M for the anti-stealth role, for example?  In the S-400 system they just link a pair in and Bob's your uncle.  For Patriot, do they have the same capability?

Quote

The peripheral stuff like Nebo and the mast mounted radar are made as reinforcements and are only available to a select few batteries.

I see a reference that about 20 Nebo-M will be operational by the end of 2021.  Assuming 2 per battery and 25 or 30 S-400 batteries, that seems like in a few years all the cool kids will have them.

Quote

Not really sure how this addresses anything. What's your point here?

 

I'd listed nine basic parameters for comparison.  The lined article by Raytheon is a sales pamphlet.   They know their own system.   It doesn't brag about simultaneous engagment rates of a scale that the Russians say they train their S-400 crews on, it doesn't mention any anti-stealth capabilities, it does state that Patriot required a new version to have 360 degree capability.  So, for our list I would provisionally pencil in this first sketch of S-400 versus Patriot - 

 

1.  Anti-stealth   - Advantage S-400 with high degree of certainty.

2.  Simultaneous engagement rate. - Advantage S-400 with moderate DOS.

3.  360 degree engagement capability  -  Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

4.  High PK per engagement - Unknown.  

6.  Long range - Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

7.  Battlefield data fusion and AD networking - Advantage Patriot with low DOS.

8.  Robust ECCM capabilities - Unknown.

9.  Effective system defenses, (active, ECM, and concealment/decoy. - Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

10.  System mobility - Advantage S-400 with high DOS.

Edited May 8, 2021 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

A quick glance at David's Sling suggests that it's the THAAD to the Patriot.  Makes sense to keep them both.  I also see that the Syrians captured one of the David Sling missiles intact and passed it onto the Russians a few years back.  Curious.

David's Sling interceptors have roughly the same range as the GEM-T missiles of the Patriot. 

The THAAD has no direct Israeli comparison, but if I were to list one it would be the Arrow 2.

There is no evidence the missile was either truly intact or delivered to Russia.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Sure, but we are assuming for comparison's sake that both systems are dressed to the max.  What is the Western equivelent to Nebo-M for the anti-stealth role, for example?  In the S-400 system they just link a pair in and Bob's your uncle.  For Patriot, do they have the same capability?

The Patriot can be cued by the AN/TPY-2 radar. It's not a VHF radar, rather an X-band, but both are only somewhat capable against low RCS targets.

In Israel the choice is usually S-band, so there's no clear winner. Some just have different needs.

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I'd listed nine basic parameters for comparison.  The lined article by Raytheon is a sales pamphlet.   They know their own system.   It doesn't brag about simultaneous engagment rates of a scale that the Russians say they train their S-400 crews on, it doesn't mention any anti-stealth capabilities, it does state that Patriot required a new version to have 360 degree capability.  So, for our list I would provisionally pencil in this first sketch of S-400 versus Patriot - 

Because engagement rate is a useless metric. It depends on many parameters and because it is so dynamic, it is stupid to even include it.

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Anti-stealth   - Advantage S-400 with high degree of certainty.

High degree of certainty ain't enough.

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Simultaneous engagement rate. - Advantage S-400 with moderate DOS.

What's DOS? Also, what's the exact given number for both systems and what's the given bottleneck?

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

360 degree engagement capability  -  Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

Coverage of Patriot can be improved with organic assets up to 360°. S-400 achieves 360° with rotating radar installations. These have their own disadvantages versus staring radars.

Primarily, the S-400 achieves its additional coverage by dedicating more material resources to it. It is overall a much more complex system with multiple non-multifunctional radars (as opposed to the Patriot. This makes it more expensive to both procure and operate. The lower cost and complexity of the Patriot allows the US to draw elements from un-used batteries and reinforce deployed ones.

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Long range - Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

Range is not a factor when S-400 is built as a higher tier system than the Patriot. It achieves a 400km range with its biggest missile, but it is not nearly maneuverable enough to hit fighters. The Patriot uses the GEM missiles to hit aerodynamic targets and improves upon the BMD role with the MSE missile.

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Effective system defenses, (active, ECM, and concealment/decoy. - Advantage S-400 with low DOS.

Those are user-specific and for the S-400 they are not part of the S-400 system, rather just organic additions.

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

System mobility - Advantage S-400 with high DOS.

Based on what? Both are wheeled and based on high mobility, all terrain trucks.

If anything, the S-400 battery is larger and has to transport items that are far more susceptible to damage on transfer. Its radars are not supposed to be driven for long distances.

[Mistral]

T-62 gun on a wheeled vehicle

 

[Josh]

Patriots replacement radar will be a staring 360 degree set.

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Patriots replacement radar will be a staring 360 degree set.

Yes, so when the replacement is operational then on the 360 degree capability, the Patriot will be superior.  AFAIK froma a bit of reading the S-400's 360 capability comes at the cost of sector scan rate, so the replacement Patriot will have both full coverage and faster scan rate, so will be superior to the S-400 as it exists now. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by glenn239

[glenn239]

On 5/8/2021 at 5:09 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Patriot can be cued by the AN/TPY-2 radar. It's not a VHF radar, rather an X-band, but both are only somewhat capable against low RCS targets.

AFAIK, X-band is shit against stealth unless the range is infeasibly close.  Unless the Patriot has something like Nebo-M that can be netted in, gotta give it to S-400 on the anti-stealth.

 

Quote

Coverage of Patriot can be improved with organic assets up to 360°. S-400 achieves 360° with rotating radar installations. These have their own disadvantages versus staring radars.

Coverage for S-400 can be improved by plugging, say, an S-350 battery into the AD grid.  They actually did this in Syria after the original S-400 deployment.

Quote

Primarily, the S-400 achieves its additional coverage by dedicating more material resources to it. It is overall a much more complex system with multiple non-multifunctional radars (as opposed to the Patriot. This makes it more expensive to both procure and operate. The lower cost and complexity of the Patriot allows the US to draw elements from un-used batteries and reinforce deployed ones.

The expense of the S-400 system is not significant in comparison to what it hunts and what it defends, and breaking up the system into numerous components makes the system overall more durable to attack. 

Quote

Because engagement rate is a useless metric. It depends on many parameters and because it is so dynamic, it is stupid to even include it.

A higher simultaneous engagement rate is always superior to a lower one.     The metric is extremely important and it is absurd to argue otherwise.  For example, if a strike package of let's say 24 aircraft enters the engagement range of a concealed battery that has a simultaneous engagement rate of 1, then at most the strike package might lose 1 or 2 aircraft.  If it is surprised by an S-400 battery, it is conceivable that all 24 aircraft would be shot down.  

 

Quote

Range is not a factor when S-400 is built as a higher tier system than the Patriot. It achieves a 400km range with its biggest missile, but it is not nearly maneuverable enough to hit fighters.

Sounds about right for current generation missiles trying to hit an agile target like an alerted fighter, but also, sounds quite wrong for next generation hypersonic AA missiles.  How well can an AWACS or F-15 evade a missile while sitting on the runway?  Modern AA missiles have a ground attack capability too, (S-400 does) and in that mode I'd be willing to bet with a ballistic lob at the airbase, range would be greater than 400km.  

 

Quote

Based on what? Both are wheeled and based on high mobility, all terrain trucks.

Based on manufacturer's claim of 5 minutes between firing and being mobile for S-400.  Show me where Raytheon claims less Patriot can do less than that.  Also based on routine Russian announcements that they're doing battery training exercises against massed cruise missile attacks in the hundreds like have been seen in Syria.  Show me where Patriot units are doing that type of training.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by glenn239

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

sector scan rate, so the replacement Patriot will have both full coverage and faster scan rate, so will be superior to the S-400 as it exists now. 

This comes from the rotating radars of the S-400. They can scan 360°, but they have to use expensive supporting systems, and every time they scan one area they don't scan the others. Spinning radars therefore have gaps in their scans, versus staring radars that don't have gaps and can therefore be also used to passively collect intel.

One more disadvantage is that it hardly makes sense to make rotating radars electronically scanned arrays, so a staring radar can focus greater power and have better sensitivity around the central beam.

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

AFAIK, X-band is shit against stealth unless the range is infeasibly close.  Unless the Patriot has something like Nebo-M that can be netted in, gotta give it to S-400 on the anti-stealth.

Unless you up the power, of which the TPY-2 has no shortage. VHF is also not great versus stealth. It can occasionally ping the location, but it has to capture a large object to actually succeed. At such a low frequency, the object has to be meters in size to capture. Kinda hard when you're looking mostly at the frontal aspect of an aircraft. If you're not looking at the frontal aspect, an X-band should do good as well.

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Coverage for S-400 can be improved by plugging, say, an S-350 battery into the AD grid.  They actually did this in Syria after the original S-400 deployment.

And the same can be done with Iron Dome plugging to Patriot, with its S-band radar, which can detect extremely small objects. 

In one incident, an Iron Dome radar accidentally locked on to 23mm shells and fired, because a technician accidentally reconfigured the filters.

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The expense of the S-400 system is not significant in comparison to what it hunts and what it defends, and breaking up the system into numerous components makes the system overall more durable to attack.

And that is because they are different tier systems.

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

A higher simultaneous engagement rate is always superior to a lower one.     The metric is extremely important and it is absurd to argue otherwise.  For example, if a strike package of let's say 24 aircraft enters the engagement range of a concealed battery that has a simultaneous engagement rate of 1, then at most the strike package might lose 1 or 2 aircraft.  If it is surprised by an S-400 battery, it is conceivable that all 24 aircraft would be shot down.

I have asked to provide accurate numbers. What is your claim of higher rates for S-400 based on?

Give me the number for the S-400 and number for the Patriot.

And the metric is only valid if you can actually get it. For most systems, in the modern age, the upper cap would be the number of missiles available in the battery, but then, for most systems it's impossible to give a maximum number.

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Sounds about right for current generation missiles trying to hit an agile target like an alerted fighter, but also, sounds quite wrong for next generation hypersonic AA missiles.  How well can an AWACS or F-15 evade a missile while sitting on the runway?  Modern AA missiles have a ground attack capability too, (S-400 does) and in that mode I'd be willing to bet with a ballistic lob at the airbase, range would be greater than 400km. 

You can use Patriot and SM-6 missiles in a ground attack mode as well. What's your point? Because you haven't disproven or even answered mine.

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Based on manufacturer's claim of 5 minutes between firing and being mobile for S-400.  Show me where Raytheon claims less Patriot can do less than that.  Also based on routine Russian announcements that they're doing battery training exercises against massed cruise missile attacks in the hundreds like have been seen in Syria.  Show me where Patriot units are doing that type of training.

Then what's the number Raytheon gives? And why should we take Russia's claims at face value?

https://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2203

[Yama]

Remarkably, Patriot has never featured in FDF's long-range SAM plans. It has been studied in few occasions, and AIUI, turned out to be poor value for money - too vulnerable and immobile compared to NASAMS or Russian systems.

Current Finnish long-range SAM tender has now 5 systems shortlisted, but no Patriot.

[bojan]

It was pretty much system designed to "gap filling" that USAF can not/does not want to tackle. Hence it is pretty much unsuitable for anyone that can not count on at least good degree of the air superiority.

Edited May 10, 2021 by bojan

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

It was pretty much system designed to "gap filling" that USAF can not/does not want to tackle. Hence it is pretty much unsuitable for anyone that can not count on massive air superiority.

Is any air defense suitable for anyone who has a guaranteed aerial inferiority?

Maybe only very mobile VSHORADs. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Mighty_Zuk

[bojan]

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

Is any air defense suitable for anyone who has a guaranteed aerial inferiority?

Inferiority on what degree? Slight? Significant? Massive?

Edited May 10, 2021 by bojan

[Mighty_Zuk]

Just now, bojan said:

Inferiority on what degree? Slight? Significant? Massive?

Irrelevant. You said the Patriot can only work for those who have massive air superiority, yet haven't substantiated your claim.

It works, and it does so pretty well.

[bojan]

5 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Irrelevant. You said the Patriot can only work for those who have massive air superiority

Significant.

Quote

, yet haven't substantiated your claim.

Neither did you, nor Glenn. IOW, we are talking from our asses, it just happens that my ass knows few things about AD, which is a apparently far fetched concept for both you and Glenn. He expects miracle solutions, and you claim that they are actually out there.

Quote

It works, and it does so pretty well.

For Israel and US I am sure it does. For Saudis... apparently not so much.

Edited May 10, 2021 by bojan

[Yama]

Patriot is an expensive system with everything mounted on unarmoured wheeled trailers with relatively poor cross-country mobility and the firing unit has a single point of failure (radar) which, if unoperable, makes the system useless. And the radar doesn't even have 360 degree coverage.  It's the same set of reasons why FDF rejected SAMP/T last time around, NASAMS had simply vastly better survivability. Comparative Russian systems are on tracked or crosscountry wheeled vehicles (often armoured), with heavily automated setup and multiple redundancies. Finnish inspector of AD got to study the newest Russian and Western air defence systems in the '90s and commented how much more comprehensive the Russian systems were. S300P -demonstration was very impressive as the unit arrived on spot and 5 minutes later was ready to fire - without a single crew member stepping outside of the vehicles!

[Mighty_Zuk]

13 minutes ago, bojan said:

He expects miracle solutions, and you claim that they are actually out there.

I know the hardware exists. With competent crews, and above that a robust doctrine, you can make effective use of hardware, and be quite creative with it.

Saudi Arabia has a solid record on its air defenses, but it is large and therefore has many gaps. Its air force does a good job hunting down drones, but it isn't enough. To make effective use of the Patriot, the Saudis need to invest more effort in VSHORAD, buy more Patriots, and better integrate its ground forces and air force in creating a single picture.

Saying "but it's not built in and requires hard work" is not an excuse. People need to be able to work hard as the default situation.

15 minutes ago, Yama said:

makes the system useless.

Made. The Patriot can use external radars to cue its missiles and gain a picture. The S-400 utilizes multiple radars that are non multifunctional. It would be almost like attaching a 2nd radar to a Patriot system, but IMO that's wrong. A better alternative today would be to add optical sensors and make more robust datalinks to handle greater data loads.

18 minutes ago, Yama said:

Finnish inspector of AD got to study the newest Russian and Western air defence systems in the '90s and commented how much more comprehensive the Russian systems were. S300P -demonstration was very impressive as the unit arrived on spot and 5 minutes later was ready to fire - without a single crew member stepping outside of the vehicles!

It's actually easier to make the system entirely automated. You can entirely skip designing a human interface. But there is more to it than just "we can do it so let's".

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Significant.

Neither did you, nor Glenn. IOW, we are talking from our asses, it just happens that my ass knows few things about AD, which is a apparently far fetched concept for both you and Glenn. He expects miracle solutions, and you claim that they are actually out there.

Right, we're not experts, we're not privy to classified information, just spitballing off of open sources.  

In terms of expectations, I think Russian AD has been caught a bit napping by the drone revolution, and the defeat of Armenia points to flaws that need to be addressed WRT drones and drone swarm tactics.  I do not believe that AD in general is a strong form of warfare, and the stealth revolution certainly did not benefiet air defense.  In Syria, the IAF dictates the pace of events because it is on the attack and the Syrians are passively on the defense.   For AD to function within the context of operations and war strategy, it needs to be integrated with offensive means of warfare in order to disrupt the enemy's tempo of operations, to force the enemy aerial forces to expose themselves and operate in a time and place not of their choosing.

Edited May 10, 2021 by glenn239

[Yama]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Right, we're not experts, we're not privy to classified information, just spitballing off of open sources.  

In terms of expectations, I think Russian AD has been caught a bit napping by the drone revolution, and the defeat of Armenia points to flaws that need to be addressed WRT drones and drone swarm tactics.

I don't think Armenia told much if anything about the state of Russian air defence systems. People need to seriously cool down on 'omg drones are magic stealth technology which goes through SAM systems like knife through butter!!1' hype. A drone, in itself, is not a challenging target for a SAM system. It is slow and defenceless. Most of the tactics Azeri used to defeat (rather outdated) Armenian air defence systems were relatively conventional: bait, locate, saturate and strike. Russians have shot down dozens of drones trying to attack Khmeimimim air base in Syria so clearly in technical sense their system are well capable of shooting them down.

Also, the phrase 'Russians were caught napping...' implies there were someone who wasn't caught napping then? I struggle to think who that could be.

Any way, we really haven't actually seen what the drones can really do once the technology scales and matures. Real swarm techniques for example are yet to be shown on the battlefield. Drones, as they presently stand, are not hard to defeat by current set of air defence systems.

[Josh]

“Drones” are not equivalent. A TB-2 or MQ-9 is not a challenging target. But I think a Harop actually is, and requires systems specifically calibrated to a low speed, low altitude threat. The drones that the Russians have to deal with in Syria seem to be commercial types that they defeat electronically; I think Harop might be a rather different animal they wouldn’t necessarily be well equipped for. I doubt the US would be either, though US units in Syria have managed to keep up with the low end drone threat as well.

I think the jury is out somewhat on the effectiveness of drones against a peer opponent, but it is abundantly clear how effective they are against an ill prepared one. And in terms of cost effectiveness, they are difficult to beat: the effort and expense of detection isn’t advantageous for the defense, even when soft kill tactics don’t require expensive weapons for engagement.

[Yama]

On 5/11/2021 at 3:26 AM, Josh said:

“Drones” are not equivalent. A TB-2 or MQ-9 is not a challenging target. But I think a Harop actually is, and requires systems specifically calibrated to a low speed, low altitude threat. The drones that the Russians have to deal with in Syria seem to be commercial types that they defeat electronically; I think Harop might be a rather different animal they wouldn’t necessarily be well equipped for. I doubt the US would be either, though US units in Syria have managed to keep up with the low end drone threat as well.

I don't see Harop as being any way special as far as targeting goes - it's just a cruise missile which flies slower, that's all. Sure enough, some older systems might have problems with minimum engagement altitude and so on.

As far as I know, drones which periodically attack Kheimimim airbase are generally pre-programmed, so EW attack would not work against them. They are mostly shot down.

People seem to forget that Armenia also had a sizable drone force. In fact they have pretty estabilished drone industry. Did the Armenian drones achieve much? No. Why? Because the Azeri shot them down.

[TonyE]

This thread is screaming for a soundtrack just like Marines! scream for 8-inch firesupport!

 

[Simon Tan]

You are a little late to the Baath Party!

[TonyE]

I might be late, but i bring the groove!🎧🎶

[Roman Alymov]

New, second, 3 km long runway at Hmeimim allows any plane to land and takeoff – first tested by three Tu-22M3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqb_9nU_n0&t=177s

[glenn239]

More reports of large changes in Saudi policy aiming to deconflict with Iran, 

‘Times have changed’: Saudi Arabia-Syria in rapprochement talks | Bashar al-Assad News | Al Jazeera