Russian Army ATGM Thread

RTN wrote:NATO obviously has an IADS called the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence (NATO IAMD). Technologically far more advanced than anything that China has.

Interesting......and with what systems this supposed "IAD" (the sensor component of which represented for more than 90% by fixed radar installations with ridiculously low performances that would be not survivable against '70 years weapons) should intercept menaces of an advanced opponent ?

The almost fixed Patriot with its 120 degree sector coverage that even Houtis has been capable to capitalize to avoid interception ? The NASAMs that employ AMRAAM as interceptors ? Or the french Crotale ? Or maybe Stinger as close range air defence ?

With the exception of the few SAMP/T systems OTAN's AD are truly ridiculous, period, that for remain silent of the almost total lack of modern high gain EW systems capable ISR distruption and PGM defeat and lack of dedicated decoy and masking systems .......


Reality is simply that OTAN doctrine is totally constructed around aircraft component and defeat of large scale attacks to theirs infrastructures is simply not contemplated at all.

RTN wrote:Whether Kh-31/58 can be intercepted or not depends on the total number of such missiles fired.

Truly and with what should them intercept those missiles ?

They lack also dedicated high power ground EW and false and modulating emitters to twart similar attacks and moreover theirs AD lack also good mobility to render themselves elusive for similar attacks.

Mindstorm wrote:Interesting......and with what systems this supposed "IAD" (the sensor component of which represented for more than 90% by fixed radar installations with ridiculously low performances that would be not survivable against '70 years weapons) should intercept menaces of an advanced opponent ?

With the largest space based and air based assets in the world. A combination of THAAD and PAC-3 can easily intercept any incoming Chinese IRBM.

What is China's or Russia's answer to E-8, RQ-4B or E-2? US can triangulate all the information captured by these airborne assets along with the info provided by space based assets to detect any incoming threat.

Mindstorm wrote:The almost fixed Patriot with its 120 degree sector coverage that even Houtis has been capable to capitalize to avoid interception ? The NASAMs that employ AMRAAM as interceptors ? Or the french Crotale ? Or maybe Stinger as close range air defence ?

Was the Pantsir S1 that Israelis blew to bits in Syria also suffering from these same design defects that you identified in the Patriot? If not how could a mobile unit be destroyed?

Burkan-2H missile fired by Houtis was intercepted by MIM-104 Patriot. At least four of the seven deadliest Houthi missile strikes took place in areas that lacked ballistic missile protection at the time of the strike.

Mindstorm wrote:Truly and with what should them intercept those missiles ?

And why would you think that Kh-31 cannot be intercepted by NASAM?

Mindstorm wrote:They lack also dedicated high power ground EW and false and modulating emitters to twart similar attacks and moreover theirs AD lack also good mobility to render themselves elusive for similar attacks.

U.S has some of the best ground based EW systems.The U.S. Marine Corps has two ground-based EW systems, the AN/ULQ-19(V)2 EA set and the AN/MLQ-36 mobile EW support system. While the AN/MLQ-36 is an electronic support system and the AN/ULQ-19 is an EA system.

One of the most important EW initiatives today is the C4ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS), which seeks to converge EW in such a way as to leverage a lot more software-defined radio.

For example, using a jammer’s power amplifier for broadcast communications or, in reverse, using a communications system as a jammer or comm gear, tuned appropriately, as a SIGINT [signals intelligence] — maybe more of a COMMINT [communications intelligence] — to add more nodes in terms of spectrum warfare. VMAX and VROD Dismounted Electronic Support/Attack system planned will be send to Europe shortly. VROD, which stands for Versatile Radio Observation and Direction, detects electronic frequencies and creates a virtual map of the electronic environment. VMAX, which stands for VROD Modular Adaptive Transmit, enables soldiers to conduct focused electronic attacks at certain frequencies in the spectrum.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2019/army/2019ewpmt.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-115324-063

https://www.army-technology.com/news/training-electronic-warfare-technology/

Sujoy wrote:Ka 52 will fire Item 305 missile from a range in excess of 100 kms. In other words, this is an improvement, in terms of range, over current tactics where (in India's case) Mi 35 armed with Strum Ataka ATGM that can be fired from 10kms away. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/indian-air-force-to-get-strum-ataka-anti-tank-missile-from-russia/446178

Sincerely i do not think that India, or for be sincere any other nation at world, would have the structure to capitalise fully the capabilities of изделие 305 except in its ATGM role.

The effect of the stand-off range and destructive power that those missiles provide (in a number of 8 maximum per helicopter) and delivered at low altitude by highly mobile platforms has sense only if immediately followed by an equally mobile and high-tempo concentrated attack of combined forces that obvioulsy classical ground forces are uncapable to provide, otherwise a typical attack with air forces with stand-off ammunitions would be more adapt.

Only a force like ВДВ today has similar characteristics worldwide and the technical requirements of the missile has been purposely conceived for that CONOPS; a group of 15 Ka-52M delivering from very low altitude up to 120 изделие 305 at more than 100 km of distance against enemy radars , typical OTAN's semi-mobile AD or runways of a major air base can allow ВДВ to be parachuted at 40-50 km of distance instead of 120-130 km and take control thanks to its mobile artillery and IFV component combined with highly trained and equiped infantry power a key OTAn's radar installation, command base or major airfield at paralising speed and, from there, continue rapidly toward enemy rear installations.

You can use them to destroy the stuff/HQ/bases in the rear coordinating the forces on the front destroying big concentrations of troops.

It's better than capturing an airport with paratroops that you can loose the next day because you would have enemy in front of them and behind them.

But to use stand off missiles you either target fixed well known positions or you must have plenty of assets to have the best intel' about enemy troop positions (satelittes, drones or airforce) which isn't really that easy to have.

Those soft kill, hard kill measures were designed to neutralize ATGMs. Not sure if they will work against a cruise missile. For instance an APS on board a MBT won't be able to destroy an incoming cruise missile.

Probably true but TOR, which operates with armour can easily shoot down cruise missiles and detect them at extended ranges too.

It would be tremendously expensive to start launching cruise missiles at individual armoured vehicles...

Ka 52 will fire Item 305 missile from a range in excess of 100 kms. In other words, this is an improvement, in terms of range, over current tactics where (in India's case) Mi 35 armed with Strum Ataka ATGM that can be fired from 10kms away.

Having a range of 100kms and finding targets at that range are two different things... it will either be used to destroy key targets in the enemys rear like an HQ or Comms centre or radar or SAM site, or it will allow the helicopter to operate 50km back from the front line and launch missiles at targets directed by ground forces... so instead of sitting 6km back and risking a MANPADS attack it can sit back 50km and launch a missile programmed to fly a specific route to a target area to look for targets that happen to be stopping an attack or attacking friendly forces.

Much of the time of course a large group of armoured targets would be engaged with guided top attack munitions launched from a Grad, Uragan, or Smerch battery.

So it's plausible that Russian Army will rely more extensively on cruise missile fired from helos instead of ATGMs. But we will have to wait and see if any next gen helicopter fired ATGMs are developed in Russia and what kind of specs they will have.

The Hermes is supposed to be the replacement for Vikhr and in the air launched version has a range of about 20km, though the ground launched model is supposed to be fired up into the air ballisticly and used out to up to 100km too. But spotting individual tank targets to that range it might be more of a niche weapon.

But they probably can't be fired from Non Line of Sight (NLOS). They will probably need guidance from UAVs

There is direct fire and indirect fire... indirect fire is non line of sight and includes anything that homes in on a target marked with a laser beam, or needing to be searched for via IIR sensor.

There are a few different types of Hermes missiles including IIR guided and also radar guided and just Glonass guided or laser homing...

Having a person marking the target with a laser is a good thing in terms of hitting what you want to hit and not hitting friendlies or civilians... or just an obvious inflatable decoy that an IIR sensor might not recognise as being fake but a human or drone might.

With the largest space based and air based assets in the world. A combination of THAAD and PAC-3 can easily intercept any incoming Chinese IRBM.

IRBMs are easy to spot and fairly straight forward to intercept because they don't deviate from a predicable curved ballistic flight path.

Drones and ATGM missiles are something else...

What is China's or Russia's answer to E-8, RQ-4B or E-2? US can triangulate all the information captured by these airborne assets along with the info provided by space based assets to detect any incoming threat.

S-400 and R-37M would shoot such platforms down at maximum range...

Was the Pantsir S1 that Israelis blew to bits in Syria also suffering from these same design defects that you identified in the Patriot? If not how could a mobile unit be destroyed?

Syria used individual Pantsir vehicles on their own to defend targets... Russia would have an entire battery of vehicles at the very minimum and more often rather more types with overlapping capabilities and performances.

Even a single Pantsir on its own is not limited to a 120 degree engagement arc... and it can easily move when it has exhausted its missiles too.

Burkan-2H missile fired by Houtis was intercepted by MIM-104 Patriot. At least four of the seven deadliest Houthi missile strikes took place in areas that lacked ballistic missile protection at the time of the strike.

Saudi Arabia has a lot of money and a lot of western air defence systems... the ease with which a third world group of flip flop wearers has not only penetrated their defences but done serious economic harm to the country is embarrassing.

And why would you think that Kh-31 cannot be intercepted by NASAM?

How many do they have in service? How widely deployed through HATO are they?

It's better than capturing an airport with paratroops that you can loose the next day because you would have enemy in front of them and behind them.

Once the airfield is captured more equipment is flown in and landed... because it is landed and does not come in by parachute it can be heavy armour rather than light armour used by the VDV normally.

GarryB wrote:There are a few different types of Hermes missiles including IIR guided and also radar guided and just Glonass guided or laser homing...

And that is interesting because Hermes A reportedly has a range of 30 kms and Hermes K will have a range in excess of 100kms. So from 30 kms and 100kms if you have to make take a NLOS shot (where soldiers on the ground or drones are not Painting the target) the ATGM will have to be GLONASS guided.

Maybe Ka 52 and Mi 28 will be armed with both the Item 305 missile an well as the Hermes A and Hermes K. If the Russian Army goes for this configuration it makes perfect sense because with the advent of short ranged AD systems - Pantsir-S1, Spyder etc attack helicopters are not as potent as they were in the past. Therefore the range and speed of the weapons these attack helos carry become very important. IIRC, some MBTs also carry a few short ranged SAMs.

Mindstorm wrote:a group of 15 Ka-52M delivering from very low altitude up to 120 изделие 305 at more than 100 km of distance against enemy radars , typical OTAN's semi-mobile AD or runways of a major air base can allow ВДВ to be parachuted at 40-50 km of distance instead of 120-130 km and take control thanks to its mobile artillery and IFV component combined with highly trained and equiped infantry power a key OTAn's radar installation, command base or major airfield at paralising speed and, from there, continue rapidly toward enemy rear installations.

Instead of employing the Item 305, these attacks can be carried out by Ka 52 with Hermes A and Hermes K as well, isn't it? Not saying Item 305 cruise missile should not be employed but Hermes A and Hermes K will probably be as effective. And in all likelihood a lot cheaper to use.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:Modern fighters/helicopters have RWR and any AD system working alone will be spotted posing no threat. The issues of NATO AD is that they don't really have an IADS.

NATO obviously has an IADS called the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence (NATO IAMD). Technologically far more advanced than anything that China has.  https://iamd-coe.org/about-us/iamd/

Isos wrote:The number of command posts and early warning radars is too low and they also have nothing to intercept the kh-31/58. They rely more on AWACS.

No. US alone has the largest number of airborne early warning radars.

Whether Kh-31/58 can be intercepted or not depends on the total number of such missiles fired. If they overwhelm NATO's AD system then yes they cannot be intercepted.

Similarly, a volley of AGM-88 HARM fired towards Russian AD systems and certainly Chinese AD systems can also overwhelm it.

NATO IADS depend on the countries which are not unified at all. Every country has its own systems and they mainly use l16.

China has russian s-300, tor and command centers which is better than anything US has.

US radars are fixed and not mobile and most of them are in the US. Only the patriot could down a kh31 (Aster missiles akso but low numbers and the ground version has a poor radar) but patriot isn't 360° and you can just attack it from behind. Other NATO systems can't shoot a kh-31 or 58. A volley of 2 is totally impossible for them. And russian also have the smaller kh-25 which is a harder target and usable in bigger numbers.

Just look at iranian attack on saudi arabia...

Tor and pantsir can protect better against HARM than US can defend against russian supersonic missiles. HARM is expensive and russian/chinese have hundreds if not thousands of dummy radars that will oblige the use of HARMs for nothing like in Yougoslavia wheb they used them against microwave ovens... and their planes woukd be attacked by russian jets.

Finally right now NATO air defence forces in europe are pathetic. They can't protect against the hundreds of kalibr that russian is loading onto practically everything that can carry them.

Isos wrote:NATO IADS depend on the countries which are not unified at all. Every country has its own systems and they mainly use l16.

Link 16 is unifying them.

Isos wrote:China has russian s-300, tor and command centers which is better than anything US has.

There is no such evidence that Chinese, Russian SAMs are superior than US analogues.

Isos wrote:US radars are fixed and not mobile and most of them are in the US. Only the patriot could down a kh31 (Aster missiles akso but low numbers and the ground version has a poor radar) but patriot isn't 360° and you can just attack it from behind.

US airborne ISR is very mobile and operates across Europe regularly. Why only Patriot, NASAM can shoot down a Kh 31 as well. Similarly, Israeli systems like Barak MR, Spyder, David Sling can also shoot down a Kh-31.

Isos wrote:Just look at iranian attack on saudi arabia...

False equivalence. Saudis did not have AWACS, J-STARs leave alone real time ISR that could detect this low flying drones/missiles. US has these capabilities in spades.

Isos wrote:Tor and pantsir can protect better against HARM than US can defend against russian supersonic missiles. HARM is expensive and russian/chinese have hundreds if not thousands of dummy radars that will oblige the use of HARMs for nothing like in Yougoslavia wheb they used them against microwave ovens... and their planes woukd be attacked by russian jets.

Precision engagement of mobile,non-cooperative targets requires a shortened "sensor-to-shooter" kill chain. U.S has ensured that through real time ISR and real time targeting.

The majority of SIGINT specific ISR data comes from a wide variety of airborne sensors,manned and unmanned,thatoperate at safe stand-off distances from ground threats.Then, a tactical aircraft thatcombines advanced SIGINT collection,geolocation,and data link dissemination capabilities generates real-time data from"within thebattlespace"and improve the real-time intelligence data that stand-off ISR assets produce.

Similarly, airborne decoy systems will contribute efficiently to SEAD operations. For example, a Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD), which might be a small jet-powered aircraft appearing like a full-size aeroplane or a cruise missile, may trigger the enemy air defence system if it is flying in the SAMs’ effective ranges. As a result, this may lead to dissipation of adversary SAM ammunition stocks. Even more importantly, the details of the enemy’s air defence systems may be recorded and critical nodes subsequently targeted by SEAD forces.

How effective US EW warfare capability is - I've explained in my previous post. You may choose to go through it.

Link 16 is unifying them.

They don't complete each other. And the low number of system makes that IADQ pathetic.

There is no such evidence that Chinese, Russian SAMs are superior than US analogues.

They already proved that. In Syria russian made systems destroy Tomahawks and israeli missile regularly. And that's the ones from poorly equiped SAA. You can compare to saudi defence during the iranian attack.

Russians frequently destroy slow and low flying drones that western radars can't even detect because slow and low flying objects are rejected by the systems because it flies like a bird.

US airborne ISR is very mobile and operates across Europe regularly. Why only Patriot, NASAM can shoot down a Kh 31 as well. Similarly, Israeli systems like Barak MR, Spyder, David Sling can also shoot down a Kh-31.

Your AWACS and jstars won't fly anywhere near an S-400 and russians have jammers for them with a range of thousands km. AWACS have a max range of 600km against huge bombers, against cruise missiles it should be no more than 100km. They are not so super as US tries to make you believe.

We saw turkish improved hawks against cruise missiles few days ago and it was pathetic. Your other systems won't do better, Patriot has a powerfull radar but limited number of missiles.

Israeli couldn't protect their ship against a single subsonic missile. Their other system were never engaged against cruise missiles.

The majority of SIGINT specific ISR data comes from a wide variety of airborne sensors,manned and unmanned,thatoperate at safe stand-off distances from ground threats.

Radar physics are the same for everyone. If you want to detect a missile, you better be close to it. The russian have advantage of being able to use routes where you have less awacs.

Back in the days sweedish detected a missile during a training of soviet forces that crossed their border and launched some fighters to destroy it, the fighters never saw it.

Similarly, airborne decoy systems will contribute efficiently to SEAD operations. For example, a Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD), which might be a small jet-powered aircraft appearing like a full-size aeroplane or a cruise missile, may trigger the enemy air defence system if it is flying in the SAMs’ effective ranges. As a result, this may lead to dissipation of adversary SAM ammunition stocks. Even more importantly, the details of the enemy’s air defence systems may be recorded and critical nodes subsequently targeted by SEAD forces.

Russia can do it and with greater success since you have nothing like pantsir or tor to protect your patriots and radars.

Russian AD is totally mobile. The node that you would target would be a dummy radar making you spend HARMs and tomahawks against rocks.

How effective US EW warfare capability is - I've explained in my previous post. You may choose to go through it.

Russia has an airforce and its AD forces know very well what jamming can do and how to counter it. They would just send a pair of su-35 towards your jammers and move to another position and let a dummy radar to be targeted by HARMs.

RTN wrote:What is China's or Russia's answer to E-8, RQ-4B or E-2? US can triangulate all the information captured by these airborne assets along with the info provided by space based assets to detect any incoming threat.

Do you know the answer is very similar.....you know we are emotionally attached to very good ideas.....to that conceived to deal with all others gold-plated US systems (such as aircraft carriers, E3 AWACS, theirs fleet of tankers and obviously theirs completely defenceless air bases widespread as fungus all around the world) constructed to sustain american violent and imperialistic expeditionary military policy against weak nations around the world : reduce them to smitheens from stand-off range.

It is a very good deal: they develop those incredibly frail assets at absurd costs and time of construction and we develop unique systems ,without foreign counterparts, capable to reliably destroy them (and many other different targets) ,from safe stand-off range, at several orders of magnitude lower cost and time of construction.

Those E-8, RQ-4B ,E-2,E-3 will probably not complete even theirs first mission in a large scale war; them will be downed from several hundreds of km of distance by purposely designed missiles delivered at very high supersonic speed by aircraft that at the same very high supersonic speed will egress from the area after separation ,theirs DCA squadrons will never get a chance to hit those aircraft. After that the remaining will be forbidden to carry out any further mission.

RTN wrote:Was the Pantsir S1 that Israelis blew to bits in Syria also suffering from these same design defects that you identified in the Patriot? If not how could a mobile unit be destroyed?

In all those years and something like 80 attempts (including through infiltrated agents and corrupted syrian operators) israelis have managed to destroy one and damage within repair another  - it defend Syrian air space in those same moments...- insulated not working unmanned  Панцирь-C1s (export version of the  Панцирь-C) capitalising bad, unprofessional habits of theirs operators.

Those same few ,insulated syrian-operated Панцирь-C1s in those same years have destroyed cruise missiles , AG missiles, planning bombs and UAVs ,majority of which just delivered by IAF, for a cost (excluding those enormous of the air operations behind them) amounting to about 2,5-3 times theirs cost.

It is not a surprise therefore that Панцирь-C1 is the most hated system among foreign military forces and the primary object of badly orchestrated defaming PR campaigns.

RTN wrote:And why would you think that Kh-31 cannot be intercepted by NASAM?

I do not think, i am absolutely certain that NASAM cannot cope with air targets much much less complex than X-31

But ,you know, this is the american way : when you lack the technological expertise to produce a specific product ,in this instance a modern medium range SAM interceptor, you adapt other products to the role obtaining in this way vastly sub-standard results , nothing new.

The aerodynamic layout and ,above all, actuators of a ground-delivered interceptor and an air delivered one are worlds apart in terms of conceptual design and structural and material requirements; among western affiliated nations only Israel (mostly thanks to the fundamental contribution of scientist coming from ex СССР) can boast good products in those sectors.

RTN wrote: U.S has some of the best ground based EW systems.The U.S. Marine Corps has two ground-based EW systems, the AN/ULQ-19(V)2 EA set and the AN/MLQ-36 mobile EW support system. While the AN/MLQ-36 is an electronic support system and the AN/ULQ-19 is an EA system.

One of the most important EW initiatives today is the C4ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS), which seeks to converge EW in such a way as to leverage a lot more software-defined radio.

Are you serious RTN  ?

Do you seriously want to put in the same sentence, not league, systems such as Мурманск-БН, capable to disrupt short wave radio channels (those used at example by ISR and command aircraft or by interflight networked data exchange or communication with naval units)  in a range form 5000 to 8000 KM !

https://iz.ru/875561/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi-roman-kretcul/shchit-i-put-russkuiu-arktiku-prikroet-radioelektronnyi-kupol

https://iz.ru/871450/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko-bogdan-stepovoi/glushitelnyi-uspekh-kompleks-reb-nakroet-evropu-iz-pod-kaliningrada


or Красуха-2O/4 or Дивноморье capable to interrup or contaminate hundreds of radar sources of aircraft such as E-3 or J-8, weapon guidance channels and even satellite surveillance (such as Lacrosse series) and GPS update for several hundreds of Km of distance and even destriy the electronic of inbound PGMs at close range.

https://iz.ru/792721/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi-aleksei-kozachenko/radioelektronnyi-shchit-minoborony-razvorachivaet-v-sirii-sredstva-reb

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/krasuha-4-tm-2014/

or the new Тирада-2С optimized to interrupt, twart or even put out of work from the ground satellite's functions and theirs link with the enemy.

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20194101037-u4y9P.html

with AN/ULQ-19(V)2 EA set or AN/MLQ-36, there are literally orders of magnitude of difference in potential and ductility among those systems.

If you are interested in what think US officials of the field you can read this, you will get an idea of what we talk about....

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2019/Spring-Glace-Electronic-Warfare/

And that is interesting because Hermes A reportedly has a range of 30 kms and Hermes K will have a range in excess of 100kms. So from 30 kms and 100kms if you have to make take a NLOS shot (where soldiers on the ground or drones are not Painting the target) the ATGM will have to be GLONASS guided.

KBP are making it and they say 20km for Hermes-A, which perhaps is the export model.

A non line of sight missile attack does not really need GLONASS... with a range of only 20-30km inertial navigation would be fine to get it to a position where it could look for targets itself with either IIR seeker or EO or radar or whatever.

Maybe Ka 52 and Mi 28 will be armed with both the Item 305 missile an well as the Hermes A and Hermes K. If the Russian Army goes for this configuration it makes perfect sense because with the advent of short ranged AD systems - Pantsir-S1, Spyder etc attack helicopters are not as potent as they were in the past. Therefore the range and speed of the weapons these attack helos carry become very important. IIRC, some MBTs also carry a few short ranged SAMs.

Helicopters well flown will always be a tricky target, but if they are going to be carrying 100km range cruise missiles then most of the time an Su-25 can move around the battlefield much faster and carry rather more missiles.

Helicopters could use ATGMs of up to 20km range to take down air defence vehicles and enemy armour and then close in and use laser guided unguided rockets (ie cheap but guided rockets) for targets like light vehicles and troop concentrations as well as cannon.

Instead of employing the Item 305, these attacks can be carried out by Ka 52 with Hermes A and Hermes K as well, isn't it? Not saying Item 305 cruise missile should not be employed but Hermes A and Hermes K will probably be as effective. And in all likelihood a lot cheaper to use.

Hermes A is the helicopter and presumably aircraft launched missile and the Hermes-K is ground and sea surface launched.

For targets 100km away the helicopters and CAS aircraft will use item 305, not Hermes.

Finally right now NATO air defence forces in europe are pathetic. They can't protect against the hundreds of kalibr that russian is loading onto practically everything that can carry them.

They very much rely on their air based system, which is mobile and expensive but effective against most third world countries that don't know what they are doing and have no modern systems. Against Serbia with obsolete equipment but good tactics they couldn't do what they normally do... the HATO attack system failed in Kosovo... from the first day to the last day of the conflict the air defence forces were a threat. They didn't shoot down an enormous number of HATO aircraft, but HATO was not able to destroy their capacity to fight back.

There is no such evidence that Chinese, Russian SAMs are superior than US analogues.

Turkey taking a lot of shit to buy S-400 instead of Patriot or THAAD seems to point to something... and drones being shot down left and right over Russian bases in Syria and not even being seen at all in Saudi Arabia suggests something too.

False equivalence. Saudis did not have AWACS, J-STARs leave alone real time ISR that could detect this low flying drones/missiles. US has these capabilities in spades.

Russia has this as ground based and working 24/7... even Saudi Arabia can't afford to fly AWACS and JSTARS over its own territory 24/7, and even if airborne I am not convinced AWACS or JSTARS would have spotted them.

Precision engagement of mobile,non-cooperative targets requires a shortened "sensor-to-shooter" kill chain. U.S has ensured that through real time ISR and real time targeting.

They got advanced warning of an Iranian ballistic missile strike and could do nothing to protect their aircraft and assets on those bases from those BMs.

They have the same problem with drones and cruise missiles.

[quote]Back in the days sweedish detected a missile during a training of soviet forces that crossed their border and launched some fighters to destroy it, the fighters never saw it.
[quote]

Not just the swedish, the Soviets detected an unidentified small target flying slowly over their borders and sent MiG-23s to intercept... they discovered it was a cessna and handed it to the local defence unit, but they didn't have any aircraft that could fly slow enough to shadow a cessna so they sent some helicopters... but helicopters don't have the radar and equipment to hunt small slow targets... by the time they located it he was landing in Red Square.

They were criticised for not shooting it down, which confused them because they had just taken a lot of shit for shooting down a civilian airliner over some very secret Soviet bases in the Far East. The MiG-23 could have shot it down but thought it was a civilian aircraft, and the Mi-24s sent to find it could not find it in time...

But since then they have had quite a few shake ups of their air defence capacity... the next person wanting to land in Red Square is in trouble and drones would have trouble doing that these days...

Isn't "product 305" Hermes?
If not what are the differences?

Hermes is based on pantsir missile. Product 305 seems to be a new missile.

I already posted a twitter post from SyrianMC which is an account hold by official SAA soldiers. They or he said russian helicopters are using a very long range missile there.

Isos wrote:Hermes is based on pantsir missile. Product 305 seems to be a new missile.

I already posted a twitter post from SyrianMC which is an account hold by official SAA soldiers. They or he said russian helicopters are using a very long range missile there.

It's Hermes. If they wanted just any long range missile they could of easily just modified Kh-35's that already have 300km range, and the range could be further extended. Product 305 is a high priority because it's a hypersonic missile, aka Hermes.

And it is smaller/lighter then Kh-35 so the heli can carry more of them.

Can I like a post more then once? Mindstorms posts are always fantastic!

When I first read information about item 305 I thought it was Hermes but we saw footage of it in that Combat Approved video with the Mi-28NM... it looked like an R-73 with a large optical nose port and very much did not look like a Hermes which is a long two stage missile in a tube.

The image was seriously blurred so I can't be sure but I think Item 305 is something secret and something very new.

Having said that Hermes is supposed to come in a range of versions with different homing options like laser spot homing, and EO targeting and MMW radar homing against armour and buildings..

The Item 305 is supposed to operate on an autopilot to the target area and then a two way datalink with IIR seeker... a bit like Brimstone but with IIR instead of MMW radar.

But the radar can turn 360°

More importantly the missiles are on angled ramps and can only hit targets within 120 degrees of the angle they are pointed at launch.

Normally the best way to defeat a SAM battery you would attack from all different directions at once, because while the tracking radars are pointed one way they can't also guide missiles towards targets coming from other directions...

Of course that would defeat an SA-6 battery, but BUK and newer SAMs each vehicle generally has a tracking radar.

With Patriot the missiles point in a specific direction and can cover about 120 degrees, so with four launchers you could cover 360 degrees and have the likely direction of attack with the extra launcher. At best you could have the join between two of the three launchers in the likely direction of attack so if you are lucky only one launcher facing away wont be able to use its missiles if all the threats come from the expected direction.

If all the attacking missiles come from the unexpected direction then you only have one launcher with missiles to defend your entire SAM battery...

The radars don't turn and neither do the missiles.

Russian equivalents are vertically launched and can fly in any direction including straight up in the case of a diving attack...

https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1297963731431968769

T-72B3 and t-90 launched both one atgm and missed.

T-80 launched 4 atgm and 3 missed.

Pathetic result. Can either be that they used old missiles or the missile sucks.

Isos wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1297963731431968769

T-72B3 and t-90 launched both one atgm and missed.

T-80 launched 4 atgm and 3 missed.

Pathetic result. Can either be that they used old missiles or the missile sucks.

It appears all four of the T-72B3 tanks hit their targets with their 9K120 Svir ATGM systems. 23/

So the T-72B3 hit all their ATGM targets according to RobLee.

Maybe inexperience use of the ATGM for the drivers.

T-80 missed all its targets.  Edit: Nvm, only 1 T-80 hit its target out of 7 fires.

I presume there is something wrong with the users of the tank because all this stuff is tested thoroughly (and for years as these are not new) before introduction.

Well, at least Russia has the first fielded Tank Bionett in the world.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1146049596331888641

I presume there is something wrong with the users of the tank because all this stuff is tested thoroughly (and for years as these are not new) before introduction.

Would be true if it was 1 crew and 1 tank. The issue is in the missile or the sights.

Could also be that it's not army crews inside but factory ones who are not used to fire with the gun.

Isos wrote:

I presume there is something wrong with the users of the tank because all this stuff is tested thoroughly (and for years as these are not new) before introduction.

Would be true if it was 1 crew and 1 tank. The issue is in the missile or the sights.

Could also be that it's not army crews inside but factory ones who are not used to fire with the gun.

No, because the missiles have been in use and production for decades. Sights are the same and tested both in Syria, Ukraine and other places. Actually, the sights for the missile are laser based and have been produced since the 70's. The sighting system in conjunction of the current tanks are newer but not that new either (Sosna-U).

So no, it wouldn't be that either.

It is entirely in the crew as it is still manually controlled and not fire and forget.

The crews only need to point where they want it to hit. The targets were pretty easy ones in open field and there were at least three different crews doing almost the same mistake. That's almost impossible.

IMO it's the missile. They probably come from the same batch and it had a default during production. Like when some cars are called back by the producers when they find something wrong and figure out that the mistake happen during production and impacted all the missile produced while the mistake was still there.