Shooting down SAMs?

[Immortal Glory]

Basically, I'm wondering whether it's possible to shoot down a SAM that's been launched in the air. For example, in order to cover ground troops, air support is a necessity. But when the enemy outlines the areas where your fighters are operating with SAM batteries then your fighters are in a state of danger. However, air support is still a necessity so therefore covering your fighters is a necessity. However, how can you do this in the first place? I've heard others speak of shooting them down with interceptors from a distance, but I'm not sure if that is an actual possibility. Any answer anyone can offer would be great.

 

[plasmahawk]

Basically, I'm wondering whether it's possible to shoot down a SAM that's been launched in the air. For example, in order to cover ground troops, air support is a necessity. But when the enemy outlines the areas where your fighters are operating with SAM batteries then your fighters are in a state of danger. However, air support is still a necessity so therefore covering your fighters is a necessity. However, how can you do this in the first place? I've heard others speak of shooting them down with interceptors from a distance, but I'm not sure if that is an actual possibility. Any answer anyone can offer would be great.

Best SAM place to shoot is at the Radar/Tel before a missile is launched. Once the missile is out its a whole different ball game, you need to take out something in case of the S-300 that is moving at 1 - 2km/second, thats one or 2 km per SECOND, upwards of 70gs

S-300 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thus you should have a missile that will fly as fast and as maneuverable as your target, or something that will indeed head on engage the SAM missile using a ballbearing shotgun type of explosion, both are hard to do though, its borderline Space Missile Defense kind of thing.

The best thing is lead the SAM Missle away from your defenses and take out its launcher/radar. In the most recent years there were events where a Scud was to be taken out by a patriot, yes this was going back to the early 90s, however, even intercepts of the scuds were not fully successful, and the scud missiles in Iraq's inventory were no where as quick and maneuverable as a surface to air missile would be.

Right now the most of the countries are trying to effectively develop a shoot down option against missiles such as the Brahmos and the Moskit Moskit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (rated at around 2,800km/hr). The modern surface to air missiles are usually flying at double the speed of the Moskit.

As you can see its a rather closed loop question in my opinion, you need something faster and smarter to hit something thats already made to be very fast.

Plasma

.... whats the speed of a Rim-161, could it knock down an S300 SA Missle?

 

[Immortal Glory]

So what of the interceptor method?

 

[kato]

I've heard others speak of shooting them down with interceptors from a distance, but I'm not sure if that is an actual possibility.

Not really a possibility, at least in practical terms. You could probably in theory try to intercept a surface-to-air missile head-on with another missile, but i'd rate the hit probability in the low two-digit percent zone at most - under beneficial conditions. The only practical possibility is to divert the missile onto a fake target produced by the primary target, such as flares, a chaff cloud or similar depending on the missile's seeking method.

That is unless you attack the launchers - or, more likely, their sensor equipment - as outlined by plasmahawk.

Typical modern air-to-air missiles move at Mach 2.5+ on their terminal seek path. And in a head-on engagement it doesn't really matter either. If you can lock them onto the launched SAM, sure, why not try. But as said, i wouldn't give a missile all that big chances to successfully intercept a SAM.

 

[Immortal Glory]

And a good way to take out their missile launchers would be to fire long range missiles at them such as cruise missiles? Artillery would be to inaccurate for such a job that would require concentration of firepower.

 

[kato]

Cruise missiles would be useless against any moving target. Air-to-ground missiles with a anti-radiation seeker to lock onto their radar are still the norm for that kind of mission.

And if the opponent has his (long-range) SAM batteries within range of your artillery, something already went very wrong for him.

 

[plasmahawk]

And a good way to take out their missile launchers would be to fire long range missiles at them such as cruise missiles? Artillery would be to inaccurate for such a job that would require concentration of firepower.

This is why there are multiple levels of Air Defense, The long rage patriot, RIM, S-300/S-400 take care of the beyond horizon, and long range targets 100+ KM.

If a cruise missile does fly in low and evades the notice of the long range air defense systems at the closer range between 30-10km will engage it, this will be something along the lines of the Tor-M1 or a Sea Sparrow ( forum whats the US version of point land based air defense? ), So the cruise missile might get shot down by this layer of defense...

check out the video here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pvva1CTdic]YouTube - TOR M1[/ame]
Tor missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

beyond that even close to the SAM you will have some soldiers with MAN PADS, portable launchers, such as Stinger, or Igla, or French Mistral.

Also you will have the Sam hopefully protected by a gatling gun type weapon as well for really up close engagment, such as the Phalanx or Kortik.

SA-N-11 Grisom / Kortik (Kashtan) | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces

So as you can see, you need to be super sneaky, and super lucky to get close enough to the air defense "network" of sams, and mini sams, and guys with mini mini mini portable sams, to take them out.

here is an idea of envelopes of engagement : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-61/fig11_2.gif


Speaking of that I have to catch a ferry , I am sure the rest of the folks on the forum can send a nice link to a good AA Umbrella system. But basically put, AA SAM systems are made to survive, best bet is to sneak in some commandos and perhaps they can disable a corridor of SAMS for you to fly in and bomb the rest.

Plasmahawk

 

[kato]

( forum whats the US version of point land based air defense? ),

There is none other than Stingers.

 

[Waylander]

Not to forget the 25mm of the Linebaker and the 12.7mm of the Avenger as another backbone of the mighty US air defense...

 

[kato]

Hehe.

Seriously though, the lowest-range tier of "serious" air defense in the US Military is PAC-3/ERINT. Which is damn huge and immobile for its 20 km range and 15 km ceiling, though understandable with the Mach 5+ post-boost phase.

 

[Onkel]

The US had this Chaparall MIM 72 in its Inventory. But it was removed from service 10 years ago without having a successor.

 

[Todjaeger]

As a practical matter, the US and allies when faced with SAMs and/or AA conduct SEAD/DEAD missions to rollback GBAD.

What this means is that there should not be any significant concentrations of SAM systems by the time aircraft are conducting CAS for ground troops. Manpack SAMs are still a potential threat, largely because they are so difficult to detect until they have been fired.

Other SAM and AA systems, either fixed or self-propelled should already be suppressed or destroyed. As already mentioned, this is most often achieved by damaging or destroying the radars and illuminators associated with the SAM systems.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that large GBAD systems tend to be located around strategic targets like C4 sites, bridgeheads, rail junctions, etc. Essentially targets that are not attacked via CAS because they would ordinarily have been dealt with prior to having ground troops close enough to need CAS.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

The question is whether a modern IADS can be structured in a manner that would make SEAD/DEAD missions impractical... and I think the answer is yes.

 

[kato]

The US had this Chaparall MIM 72 in its Inventory. But it was removed from service 10 years ago without having a successor.

It was also pretty much a joke as far as vehicle SAM systems of comparable size go. Mostly owing to its pretty low speed (Mach 1.5), low range and altitude coverage, lock-on-before-launch requirement (preventing interception of e.g. helicopters popping up and attacking) and complete lack of supporting search systems (Chaparral tracked visually only, using a FLIR from the 80s onward).

The official successor of Chaparral is the Avenger system. Which in capability isn't really all that worse (slightly less range due to using Stinger missiles).

 

[Todjaeger]

The question is whether a modern IADS can be structured in a manner that would make SEAD/DEAD missions impractical... and I think the answer is yes.

Clearly the answer is yes. Consider this, what country in the world is capable of conducting SEAD/DEAD missions against the US? There are of course a number of reasons behind that though. For instance, there are few nations that have ability to get combat aircraft close enough to the US to launch missiles or drop bombs, never mind being able to do so without detection, etc.

IMO what is a more interesting question, is what is the optimum balance between airborne and ground-based assets within a modern/advanced IADS?

The US and allies generally seem to rely upon ground-based radar systems for area surveillance, with airborne AEW systems available as needed. The principle response to an aerial incursion would be coming from interceptor aircraft, with GBAD systems consisting of some large SAM systems to protect strategic centres vs. incoming missiles and manpack SAMs as well.

When examining the Russian/Soviet/Eastern approach to IADS, they seem to rely much more heavily upon ground-based systems. In addition to ground-based surveillance radars, there is significant deployments of SAM and SPAAG systems. This would seem to indicate that there would be less reliance upon interceptors as the primary response to an incursion.

-Cheers

 

[plasmahawk]

Clearly the answer is yes. Consider this, what country in the world is capable of conducting SEAD/DEAD missions against the US?
-Cheers

Keep in mind that striking against the US, mainland, is completely pointless, if thats what you mean. However, I think the SEAD/DEAD would be conducted against the regional bases and aircraft carrier groups, not against the motherland.

This is where we close this thread and transfer it over to the naval side of the forum and discuss the AA defensive capabilities of the Aircraft carriers etc. But thats another thread in its own right.

I think we are now straying to far away from the original question, can a S/A guided missile be shot down, after launch?

Plas

 

[kato]

The principle response to an aerial incursion would be coming from interceptor aircraft, with GBAD systems consisting of some large SAM systems to protect strategic centres vs. incoming missiles and manpack SAMs as well.

That's actually more a temporary thing due to the retirement of systems such as Hawk and Roland before replacements were available.

If you look at the layout before the retirement of these system - or at the ones planned in the next iteration - you'll see a multi-layer network including mobile GB assets in most Western nations as well (except for the USA).

Those countries fully relying on airbased assets barely have anything in SAM systems at all, and definitely not large systems. See UK and e.g. also Switzerland.

Other nations used to have, and in the future again will have a wide across-the-board variety of systems easily comparable to the Russian approach - see e.g. the Bundeswehr, which by mid-next-decade wants to employ 5 different ground-based SAM systems each with a different range envelope (long-range: Patriot / PAC-2, medium-range: MEADS / PAC-3 & Iris-T SL, short-range: SysFla / LFK NG & Stinger). All ground-controlled and -guided too. And even with SPAAGs below that layer.

 

[Feanor]

Clearly the answer is yes. Consider this, what country in the world is capable of conducting SEAD/DEAD missions against the US? There are of course a number of reasons behind that though. For instance, there are few nations that have ability to get combat aircraft close enough to the US to launch missiles or drop bombs, never mind being able to do so without detection, etc.

My mistake on the wording. Given roughly equal resources to spend from both sides. Otherwise the comparison has no theoretical value.