SA-21 and radar vs JASSM & F-22

[kevinkins]

A jamming F-35A? What load out is that? I do not see it. But need to try it. Thanks.

[DrRansom]

Hmm, F-35 successfully jamming beyond 100 miles? That seems to be suspiciously powerful.

Unless it is a deception style jammer, but that would be limited to the plane itself...

[ExNusquam]

Hmm, F-35 successfully jamming beyond 100 miles? That seems to be suspiciously powerful.

I wouldn't be surprised if Command is undermodeling the EW capabilities of the AN/APG-81. AESA's have some really, really impressive beamforming capabilities. Here's some slides from an UNCLASS VX-31 presentation on the APG-79 on the Super Hornet; take note that Electronic Attack is a feature of both A/A and A/S envelopes, and the AESA is less detectable while emitting than a non-AESA that is under EMCON.

[kevinkins]

I do not see any option for the a/c to jam at all irrespective of any modeling. Loadout?

Kevin

[wild_Willie2]

No database version...

Update to the latest version

W.

[mikeCK]

Well, spotting the F-22 via IR would make sense. My planes were loitering so they often exposed engines. I will play around with it. I wish the U.S. Would get a really fast ground attack missile. My AARM move at 2.5 Mach I think and get blown out of the sky...but maybe a semi stealthy JASSM type moving low at Mach 2-3. Just takes my JASSMs sooooo long to hit after they are close enough to be detected. Watching them get blown out of the sky one by one until all gone

[kevinkins]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Yes, after having tested it with the latest version of the database, I can definitely confirm it, a squadron of F-22's loaded out with SDB-IIs does it with a single sortie, with no aircraft lost. The same test done with F-35A's and SDB-II's was even more dramatic, particularly with the powerful jamming ability they have.

Having a difficult time reproducing this trying to design an AI controlled attack sequence for the "computer player". I can't do myself in fact.[&:]

Could someone provide hints on how to achieve the kills with no losses listed above: Squadron of F22s with any ordnance vs the S-400 Battalion? The devil must be in the details.

Kevin

[DWReese]

If you are going to do further testing (and I would), I would suggest working with minimal units. Start with just the SAM and the plane. When does the radar unit detect the plane? At what altitude? Try different ones? Keep notes? Then, add a OpFor plane. Did that make a difference? What were the range and altitude for each detection? Try it at different altitudes. Then, fire the missiles at the SAM (or target). When did the SAM detect them? With, and without the OpFor planes.

I you strip it all completely down to just bare minimums, then you can see what it happening. Play it from the Scenario Editor and swap back and forth often. That way you can see what is being seen and when, and with what equipment.

There may be an error, but you can't be sure until you do all of the rest of these tests.

Doug

[wild_Willie2]

The problem is that the S400's radar wil detect the F22 at 30 miles and engage the SBD bombs at 50 miles once released so I don't know how the OP took out an S400 with just F22's. This is only possible if more then 64 weapons are
released at the S400 site and it shoots itself dry trying to defend itself.

The same can be achieved by firing 65 HARMS at it btw...


W.

[kevinkins]

Thanks guys. I like the minimalist idea. My findings conform to Wild Willie2. I am trying to do this in the context of a community scenario lasting about 1 day. Given the fire power required, my intended "skirmish" would escalate into a major conflict. Well that's up to me to design. But at least I know I am not missing something simple like the OP outlined. Glad I circled back on this. BTW has the S-400 ever engaged a hostile target? What is it's efficacy based on?

Kevin

[Lubaru]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Thanks guys. I like the minimalist idea. My findings conform to Wild Willie2. I am trying to do this in the context of a community scenario lasting about 1 day. Given the fire power required, my intended "skirmish" would escalate into a major conflict. Well that's up to me to design. But at least I know I am not missing something simple like the OP outlined. Glad I circled back on this. BTW has the S-400 ever engaged a hostile target? What is it's efficacy based on?

Kevin

BTW has the S-400 ever engaged a hostile target? What is it's efficacy based on?

Good question. Just what is the basis for this awesome reputation. It is difficult to glean from the internet, since there is a lot of hype and unproven information both supporting the reputation and trying to bash it. Some mention the missiles incredible speed, but couldn't that be exploited and turned to the target pilots advantage with high g maneuvers. And could the missile sensors, controls, and body itself hold up under the incredible stress and g load from a sharp turn with those speeds. With no combat record there must be some specific unclassified information about the system that confirms at least some of its reputation. Can someone-in layman's terms-list a couple of its features that make it so revolutionary.....Yeah that's the question I was looking for- "What makes it revolutionary?"

[Cik]

simultaneous target engagement capability
good range
reasonable mobility
probably the best self-defence capability in the world
scalable, capable of integration with many other recent russian SAM/SHORAD systems (sa-15/11/17)

what made the SA-6 revolutionary over the SA-2? it's just better, basically. way better.

edit: i should clarify that to me it's not really "revolutionary"
the SA-2 was revolutionary; it changed how both defender and attacker operated in enormous and far-reaching ways. the S-400 is just the S-300 but better, which was just the SA-6 but better, etc. it's capabilities are expanded, but it's still basically an area denial long range radar SAM system, cast in the mold of the SA-2. that doesn't mean that it's bad, or nonthreatening, but it does mean that it doesn't really qualify as revolutionary, imo.

[Dimitris]

It is reportedly also (at least according to the consensus in the 'Crows community AFAIK) quite hard to jam. Its SAGG guidance is essentially TVM+ (both missile and ground controller process the target data and calculate intercept course, then compare/merge their results) and TVM has a notorious anti-jam reputation to begin with.

Fun anecdote: During Odyssey Dawn, at a moment where almost half of NATO air was prowling over Libyan airspace, someone mistakenly identified a ground radar emission as a "Flap Lid" (popular tracking/FC radar on S-300P series) and spread the word. Immediately almost all aircraft exited the theater at max speed. (Yes, the "almost" part got me curious too).

[Galahad78]

The SA-21 family is very hard to beat...except if you are playing on the Russian side and the SA-21 is your own [:@][:@]

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

reputation

That's the point of it's use in an old fashion anti access area denial role geopolitically. From a game play POV, I hesitate to place a battalion on the map since they so dominate the battle space and take so much firepower to neutralize. Short of all out war, NATO would stay clear based on how they operate within Command. This may very well be the correct interpretation. I just have this nagging feeling I am missing some more efficient tactic that NATO has up it's sleeve. I sand boxed turning off their radar with a "cyber attack" for 30 mins. That was exciting.

Kevin

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

reputation

That's the point of it's use in an old fashion anti access area denial role geopolitically. From a game play POV, I hesitate to place a battalion on the map since they so dominate the battle space and take so much firepower to neutralize. Short of all out war, NATO would stay clear based on how they operate within Command. This may very well be the correct interpretation. I just have this nagging feeling I am missing some more efficient tactic that NATO has up it's sleeve. I sand boxed turning off their radar with a "cyber attack" for 30 mins. That was exciting.

Kevin

See a Growler-vs-Growler example from our v1.10 notes: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=4091

Given that both active missiles of the S-400 system still have an uncertain operational status (9M96M is still in dev hell and 40N6 is only entering service this year IIRC), the reliance of the 48N6xx family on weapon illumination is a potentially fatal flaw which can be exploited, as in that example.

[kevinkins]

Thanks. I remember reading that when I first started. Then I searched to see if the Navy and USAF were partnering and found (low and behold) http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... h-afb.aspx

I guess it begs the question: are there enough Gowlers to go around to operate jointly with the AF in the case of a crisis. Interesting to see how the AF is handling EW. There seems to be a gap.

Kevin

[DrRansom]

Also, when thinking about US performance against a Russian system, consider that the most modern Russian air defenses the US has faced are late 1970s. The US has no combat experience against anything from the 1980s onward.

Furthermore, I think that system mobility is being underrated on an operational level. From what I've read on USAF purchasing decisions, rapid time to target weapons are becoming very popular.

[Cik]

well, mobility is nice of course but it still takes at least an hour as far as i know. there are mobile SAMs and "mobile" SAMs. the mobility aspect is more of a strategic boon then a tactical one. i doubt very much for instance that you could somehow pack up and move the battalion in the time it takes for a wall of SDBs to approach. the mobility is more for introducing some uncertainty into your position from an intelligence perspective, shifting to cover advancing troops and to defray steerpoint-targeted strikes within a certain window. (if you plan a strike 12 hours before it sorties the thing may have just moved within that window)

AFAIK this doesn't apply to SA-15/17/11 who are far more mobile TELAR style treaded vehicles who can quite easily shuffle around in real time to avoid incoming ordnance.

anyway the whole system is pretty threatening but there are ways to deal with it, just like it's ancestors. a competitive and recent area denial system has always been a pain, and that includes pretty much every single one of the S-400's ancestors in their own time period. see: SA-2 ring around hanoi '69

[kevinkins]

Good point on mobility. Probably difficult to model (roads, troop training etc ...) without some sort of fudge factor. We started to look into mobility via lua code. Tedious. Not sure if S-400 is underrated per se until we see it in action. It's hard to fathom the Pentagon would not have a tactic to defeat the one and only threat Russia has apart from Nukes. That's why I scratch my head trying devise a economical strike that succeeds.

Kevin