Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Land based EW systems supporting SAMs against aircrafts

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • panzerfeist1
    Rank 6 Registered User
    • Feb 2018
    • 339

    Land based EW systems supporting SAMs against aircrafts

    http://tass.com/defense/1063141

    "Electronic warfare specialists from Russia’s Central Military District tested a new method of jamming enemy aircraft while using three different types of ground-based electronic counter-measures systems, the District’s press office reported on Monday.

    "During the experiment at the Sverdlovsk and Chebarkul practice ranges, servicemen used the Borisoglebsk [electronic counter-measures] system to conduct radio-electronic reconnaissance. By penetrating the channels of communications systems’ control, they created interference in the operation of ground and airborne radio communications employed by a notional enemy," the statement says.

    Read also
    Russia’s cutting-edge weaponry capable of ‘blinding’ enemy's arm


    The teams of the Krasukha [electronic counter-measures] system suppressed the signal of an onboard radar installed on an aircraft and also the radio channels of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles. The activation of the Zhitel hardware made it possible to shut out satellite communications equipment, navigation and cellular communications systems within a radius of 30 km," the statement reads.

    The new method allows electronic warfare specialists to create "vacuum" space shielded from the impacts of drones, airborne radars, radio-controlled high-explosive munitions and cruise missiles, the District’s press office explained.
    The drills involved about 500 servicemen, the District’s press office specified for TASS.

    "The experiment involved unmanned aerial vehicles, communications systems, dummy munitions and aircraft," the press office said."

    Scenario

    Lets all say there is an assigned mission to take out 3 pantsir systems but these systems are within the area of the 3 mentioned above EW systems. Aircrafts are deprived from targeting these mobile pantsir systems and cruise missiles are deprived from getting information from the aircrafts radars and satellite information to find where these pantsir systems are.

    However the problem is this



    Some of these systems are not mobile when set up. This means that SEAD can still effectively be conducted as long as aircrafts launch missiles at a far enough range. https://www.oxts.com/what-is-inertial-navigation-guide/

    Switch on a GPS receiver and, assuming everything works correctly, after a short time it will generate a position measurement. Ignoring the inaccuracies GPS has, the position measurement the receiver generates is quite specific. It says ‘
    you are at this latitude and this longitude
    ‘—in other words it gives us an absolute position using a known co-ordinate system. Inertial navigation systems don’t work like that. In their case the measurement they generate is relative to their last known position. So even after an inertial navigation system has been turned on for several minutes, it can’t say ‘
    you are at this latitude and this longitude
    ‘, but what it can say is, ‘
    you haven’t moved from where you started
    ‘.

    I am assuming that a computer with a laid out map program on a missile shows where the planned targets are, Sensors say how far the missile has travelled from its last known location to the computer, the computer gets updated with the distance travelled from the sensors and determines when it will hit the planned targets.

    So the only issue I am assuming with INS is its computer needs the program before the mission starts of where the 3 desired targets are. However these 3 targets are mobile. Data can be transmitted to update the program on the computer of the missile but EW systems deprive that from happening. But the EW systems are not mobile systems like the pantsirs which means they can still be targeted with the before mission program on the computer of the missiles. Which means although the pantsirs are mobile systems but to not be targeted they are to protect these EW systems from INS guided missiles.

    The other countermeasure against EW systems and SAM units are EO devices but this can be targetted soon enough by peresvet which I am assuming is going to be like a land based sokol echelon.
    • Pantsir systems effectiveness has to be good enough to cover EW systems.
    • EW systems have to be good enough to provide an increased survival chance to SAM units from being hit by making aerial targets left in the dark long enough.
    • Good enough Military coordination between EW and SAM units is needed for increased effectiveness.
    Although there is no way to determine how effective these systems are against a SEAD attack from aircrafts as in poor or high performance. Is this analysis of mine correct, is there things that I have missied?




    I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.
  • djcross
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 5423

    #2

    Scenarios similar to your scenario have been war gamed many years ago and results were used to develop requirements for the current generation of aircraft capabilities and weapons.

    The attacking aircraft would fix the target locations with respect to its own INS. This can be performed at a distance of several dozens of km. The jet uploads INS data to its weapons immediately before release. Fiber Optic Gyros (FOG) are commonly used on modern western weapons and have a drift rate of <30m per minute. After flyout, the weapons' FOG-aided guidance would activate IIR, milimeter wave or other terminal sensors with sufficient field of view to select the targets, reject decoys and complete the attack. There are no GPS or jet-to-weapon RF emissions required for this scenario, therefore rendering EW support of the SAMs completely ineffective.
    Last edited by djcross; 12th June 2019, 06:20.

    Comment

    • LMFS
      Rank 4 Registered User
      • Feb 2018
      • 472

      #3
      Originally posted by djcross View Post
      Scenarios similar to your scenario have been war gamed many years ago and results were used to develop requirements for the current generation of aircraft capabilities and weapons.

      After flyout, the weapons' FOG-aided guidance would activate IIR, milimeter wave or other terminal sensors with sufficient field of view to select the targets, reject decoys and complete the attack.
      Well, it depends on the weapon. For instance SDB (GBU-39) or JDAM lack additional autonomous guidance methods and would essentially fail or have their accuracy strongly affected in case the GPS signal is degraded. Other weapons have radar altimeters or MMW seekers that can be affected by EW too. And every step taken to make the weapon capable of being used amidst strong and sophisticated EW employment makes it also notably more expensive and either short ranged or less powerful. That is a reason why some of us think many of the currently used PGMs are not really usable against peer rivals with their military capabilities intact since they would fall short in terms of accuracy, range, speed and destructive power, and rather intended as low cost solutions for military engagements against weak opponents. It is also a reason in favour of bigger warheads (with a significantly bigger destructive blast and therefore lethal radius) instead of "micro" weapons like SDBs, since they can be both more effective in case of degraded guidance (not only EW but also masking etc are to be considered) and also compensate for the cost of the more expensive seekers installed on them. Given the weapons mentioned above are among the most widely used in the West, EW alone would put a significant additional cost and tactical burden on those militaries by forcing them to substitute cheap and simple weapons that can be used in great numbers to saturate AD with much more expensive ones with multi-mode seekers that would besides have reduced range and destructive power performances. This puts the current model of widespread use of small PGM against all kind of military targets under question, since not every target would be worth the investment and salvo size needed to make the weapons effective. And the needed increase of weapons size would favour carriers of increased capacity vs. "light" strike platforms like F-35

      Comment

      • ActionJackson
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2010
        • 278

        #4
        SDB I has both gps and ins guidance so against a static target is still a viable weapon.

        SDB II is a whole different thing. It has a tri-mode seeker including active mm wave radar ( the hard to jam type )a s well as infrared/optical seeker on top of GPS/INS + aircraft mid-course guidance to get it to the target vicinity.

        This combined with its lower price, standoff range, swarming capability you just won't get on a heavier weapon makes it an awesome solution for near peer adversaries such as China.
        Last edited by ActionJackson; 12th June 2019, 08:44.

        Comment

        • garryA
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2015
          • 1120

          #5
          Originally posted by LMFS View Post

          Well, it depends on the weapon. For instance SDB (GBU-39) or JDAM lack additional autonomous guidance methods and would essentially fail or have their accuracy strongly affected in case the GPS signal is degraded. Other weapons have radar altimeters or MMW seekers that can be affected by EW too. And every step taken to make the weapon capable of being used amidst strong and sophisticated EW employment makes it also notably more expensive and either short ranged or less powerful. That is a reason why some of us think many of the currently used PGMs are not really usable against peer rivals with their military capabilities intact since they would fall short in terms of accuracy, range, speed and destructive power, and rather intended as low cost solutions for military engagements against weak opponents. It is also a reason in favour of bigger warheads (with a significantly bigger destructive blast and therefore lethal radius) instead of "micro" weapons like SDBs, since they can be both more effective in case of degraded guidance (not only EW but also masking etc are to be considered) and also compensate for the cost of the more expensive seekers installed on them. Given the weapons mentioned above are among the most widely used in the West, EW alone would put a significant additional cost and tactical burden on those militaries by forcing them to substitute cheap and simple weapons that can be used in great numbers to saturate AD with much more expensive ones with multi-mode seekers that would besides have reduced range and destructive power performances. This puts the current model of widespread use of small PGM against all kind of military targets under question, since not every target would be worth the investment and salvo size needed to make the weapons effective. And the needed increase of weapons size would favour carriers of increased capacity vs. "light" strike platforms like F-35
          There are many ways to overcome EW
          Current GPS guided weapons have anti jam
          SDB II has additional IIR and SAL
          AARGM-ER, SPEAR-EW have passive RF
          LRASM has additional IIR, passive RF
          Multimode seekers are still available on small weapons such as SDB II and JAGM

          Besides, I think big warhead is not a relevance or effective way to overcome electronic countermeasure unless you put a nuclear warhead on missiles.
          Big weapons will have bigger radar, visual, infrared signature. Thus, both hard kill and soft kill countermeasures can be applied toward them sooner, they are also harder to mask with support jamming
          Last edited by garryA; 12th June 2019, 09:29.

          Comment

          • garryA
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2015
            • 1120

            #6
            Originally posted by panzerfeist1 View Post
            http://tass.com/defense/1063141

            "Electronic warfare specialists from Russia’s Central Military District tested a new method of jamming enemy aircraft while using three different types of ground-based electronic counter-measures systems, the District’s press office reported on Monday.

            "During the experiment at the Sverdlovsk and Chebarkul practice ranges, servicemen used the Borisoglebsk [electronic counter-measures] system to conduct radio-electronic reconnaissance. By penetrating the channels of communications systems’ control, they created interference in the operation of ground and airborne radio communications employed by a notional enemy," the statement says.

            Read also
            Russia’s cutting-edge weaponry capable of ‘blinding’ enemy's arm


            The teams of the Krasukha [electronic counter-measures] system suppressed the signal of an onboard radar installed on an aircraft and also the radio channels of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles. The activation of the Zhitel hardware made it possible to shut out satellite communications equipment, navigation and cellular communications systems within a radius of 30 km," the statement reads.

            The new method allows electronic warfare specialists to create "vacuum" space shielded from the impacts of drones, airborne radars, radio-controlled high-explosive munitions and cruise missiles, the District’s press office explained.
            The drills involved about 500 servicemen, the District’s press office specified for TASS.

            "The experiment involved unmanned aerial vehicles, communications systems, dummy munitions and aircraft," the press office said."

            Scenario

            Lets all say there is an assigned mission to take out 3 pantsir systems but these systems are within the area of the 3 mentioned above EW systems. Aircrafts are deprived from targeting these mobile pantsir systems and cruise missiles are deprived from getting information from the aircrafts radars and satellite information to find where these pantsir systems are.

            However the problem is this



            Some of these systems are not mobile when set up. This means that SEAD can still effectively be conducted as long as aircrafts launch missiles at a far enough range. https://www.oxts.com/what-is-inertial-navigation-guide/

            Switch on a GPS receiver and, assuming everything works correctly, after a short time it will generate a position measurement. Ignoring the inaccuracies GPS has, the position measurement the receiver generates is quite specific. It says ‘
            you are at this latitude and this longitude
            ‘—in other words it gives us an absolute position using a known co-ordinate system. Inertial navigation systems don’t work like that. In their case the measurement they generate is relative to their last known position. So even after an inertial navigation system has been turned on for several minutes, it can’t say ‘
            you are at this latitude and this longitude
            ‘, but what it can say is, ‘
            you haven’t moved from where you started
            ‘.

            I am assuming that a computer with a laid out map program on a missile shows where the planned targets are, Sensors say how far the missile has travelled from its last known location to the computer, the computer gets updated with the distance travelled from the sensors and determines when it will hit the planned targets.

            So the only issue I am assuming with INS is its computer needs the program before the mission starts of where the 3 desired targets are. However these 3 targets are mobile. Data can be transmitted to update the program on the computer of the missile but EW systems deprive that from happening. But the EW systems are not mobile systems like the pantsirs which means they can still be targeted with the before mission program on the computer of the missiles. Which means although the pantsirs are mobile systems but to not be targeted they are to protect these EW systems from INS guided missiles.

            The other countermeasure against EW systems and SAM units are EO devices but this can be targetted soon enough by peresvet which I am assuming is going to be like a land based sokol echelon.
            • Pantsir systems effectiveness has to be good enough to cover EW systems.
            • EW systems have to be good enough to provide an increased survival chance to SAM units from being hit by making aerial targets left in the dark long enough.
            • Good enough Military coordination between EW and SAM units is needed for increased effectiveness.
            Although there is no way to determine how effective these systems are against a SEAD attack from aircrafts as in poor or high performance. Is this analysis of mine correct, is there things that I have missied?



            What stop anti radar missiles and UAV from attacking these EW station?

            Comment

            • panzerfeist1
              Rank 6 Registered User
              • Feb 2018
              • 339

              #7
              garryA
              "
              What stop anti radar missiles and UAV from attacking these EW station?
              "
              I feel a little embarrassed that I missed this, thanks for bringing it up. The only solution I see against radiation missiles would be decoy emitters to lure these missiles to SAM units designed specifically to shoot them down.
              I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

              Comment

              • LMFS
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • Feb 2018
                • 472

                #8
                ActionJackson
                SDB I has both gps and ins guidance so against a static target is still a viable weapon.
                I am just pointing out general principles, I know everything has exceptions and ways of being optimized. It may remain viable but depending on what is the drift of the INS, the hardness of the target, the launch distance etc. If the data posted above by djcross are accurate, then we can talk about > 100 m for a distant target. So they cannot used their precision instead of the size of the warhead. A big warhead will do harm 50 m away from a target, a smaller one will be less effective.

                This combined with its lower price, standoff range, swarming capability you just won't get on a heavier weapon makes it an awesome solution for near peer adversaries such as China.
                The general trend I referred is that the more complex the weapon, the more expensive it is and the smaller its warhead. SDB I and II are perfect examples of this (please correct the data where needed, I took them without much research from Wiki):

                Warhead weight (explosive)
                SDB I 93 kg (16 kg)
                SDB II 48 kg
                Mk 82 ca. 220 kg (87 kg)

                Cost
                SDB I $40,000
                SDB II $250,000
                Mk 82 $2,000

                So again it depends on what you consider low cost and how deep your pockets are. Them being low subsonic, frail targets, their survivability against even AAA is not the best so you will indeed need a big salvo size. The advantage they indeed have is their range and that they allow a single carrier to transport many, which helps in the saturation of the AD.

                garryA
                There are many ways to overcome EW
                Of course. And there are always ways to neutralize those additional seekers too, like concealing, aerosols and purpose-built flare / chaff dispensers capable of hiding a whole military column in IR and RF. Everything is relative to the technological and proficiency levels of the involved armed forces. What is a cake walk against a weak opponent turns exponentially more difficult against one with more resources.
                Besides, I think big warhead is not a relevance or effective way to overcome electronic countermeasure unless you put a nuclear warhead on missiles.
                Not really, a big warhead or bomb will rain heavily with shrapnel everything in tens of meters. A radar or light vehicle would be still destroyed.

                If you lose accuracy, you have to increase the size of the warhead, this is only logical.
                Big weapons will have bigger radar, visual, infrared signature. Thus, both hard kill and soft kill countermeasures can be applied toward them sooner, they are also harder to mask with support jamming
                A supersonic missile with big range and big warhead will be both much more difficult to shoot down and much more lethal than a small bomb hitting farther from target than it is intended to. But of course it will be more expensive and will need more and bigger carriers to attack a many targets. Israel is already fielding them.

                panzerfeist1

                Those EW assets are operated within the cover of the AD. So the carrier of those anti radiation missiles still needs to come close to be in range for the attack. As you said, the SAM / AAA and the EW work protecting each other. And of course EW can be deployed in overlapping configuration so that emitters can be switched on and off without interruption of their protection and still preventing the anti radiation missiles from finishing their attack against them. There are always many ways.

                Comment

                • Ozair
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2015
                  • 815

                  #9
                  Originally posted by LMFS View Post
                  The general trend I referred is that the more complex the weapon, the more expensive it is and the smaller its warhead. SDB I and II are perfect examples of this (please correct the data where needed, I took them without much research from Wiki):

                  Warhead weight (explosive)
                  SDB I 93 kg (16 kg)
                  SDB II 48 kg
                  Mk 82 ca. 220 kg (87 kg)

                  Cost
                  SDB I $40,000
                  SDB II $250,000
                  Mk 82 $2,000
                  The last contract for SDB II was US$77 million for 570 weapons, that is approx $135k per weapon including the admin and contract costs.

                  https://www.airforce-technology.com/...omb-ii-sdb-ii/

                  ​​​​​​ That only gets cheaper as more are acquired including by allied partners.

                  The smaller warhead is a good thing, especially as the CEP of SDB II is so small. That reduces collateral damage allowing the weapon to be used in more circumstances.

                  Comment

                  • garryA
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2015
                    • 1120

                    #10
                    Originally posted by LMFS View Post
                    Of course. And there are always ways to neutralize those additional seekers too, like concealing, aerosols and purpose-built flare / chaff dispensers capable of hiding a whole military column in IR and RF. Everything is relative to the technological and proficiency levels of the involved armed forces. What is a cake walk against a weak opponent turns exponentially more difficult against one with more resources.
                    flares, chaff, and aerosol will block sensors from both sides.
                    but yep there are always ECM and ECCMfor everything


                    Originally posted by LMFS View Post
                    Not really, a big warhead or bomb will rain heavily with shrapnel everything in tens of meters. A radar or light vehicle would be still destroyed.
                    If you lose accuracy, you have to increase the size of the warhead, this is only logical.
                    That is somewhat irrelevance as ECM when they work can easily generate miss distance on order of hundred meters


                    Originally posted by LMFS View Post
                    A supersonic missile with big range and big warhead will be both much more difficult to shoot down and much more lethal than a small bomb hitting farther from target than it is intended to
                    IMHO, it depends, supersonic missiles aren't always harder to shot down, they often have a higher signature, hence easier to detect and harder to mask with ECM, and you can always carry more small missiles than big missiles. Individually, 1 AARGM-ER might be harder to shot down than 1 SPEAR, but does 1AARGM-ER harder to shot down than 4 SPEAR ?

                    Comment

                    • SpudmanWP
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 5276

                      #11
                      If Spear(3?) has a decent NoE mode then it will present a serious threat to any IADS.
                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                      Comment

                      • ActionJackson
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Oct 2010
                        • 278

                        #12
                        Supersonic missiles require expensive, supersonic decoys for swarming attacks.

                        Comment

                        • LMFS
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Feb 2018
                          • 472

                          #13
                          Ozair

                          The last contract for SDB II was US$77 million for 570 weapons, that is approx $135k per weapon including the admin and contract costs.

                          https://www.airforce-technology.com/...omb-ii-sdb-ii/
                          Thanks. It is still almost 4 times more expensive than the GBU-39.

                          It would be good to know how many of each type (say Mk 82 / GBU 38 JDAM / SDB I / SDB II) have been ordered. That would give an idea of what is really considered "cheap" by the services.

                          EDIT: below actual procurement data: JDAM / SDB I / SDB II are bought (2019) in proportions 70.5 / 11 / 1, though SDB II is significantly increased for 2020:

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	cOShldE.png
Views:	177
Size:	80.5 KB
ID:	3865325

                          The smaller warhead is a good thing, especially as the CEP of SDB II is so small. That reduces collateral damage allowing the weapon to be used in more circumstances.
                          Sure they have less collateral damage, but will they remain effective when the opponent has proficient AD and countermeasures? They are weapons to make war on the cheap, to say it provocatively.

                          garryA
                          That is somewhat irrelevance as ECM when they work can easily generate miss distance on order of hundred meters
                          I don't think that is how it works. Since the opponent has EW to fool your GPS (and of course you may no use differential GPS for those extremely low CEPs), you put multimode seekers on the weapon. Still countermeasures exist that can affect your guidance, therefore you have to consider a certain % of loss of effectiveness, but not a total loss because then you would not bother using the weapon in the first place. So you make a weapon that still will kill even if the CEP is 20 m and not 1.

                          IMHO, it depends, supersonic missiles aren't always harder to shot down, they often have a higher signature, hence easier to detect and harder to mask with ECM, and you can always carry more small missiles than big missiles. Individually, 1 AARGM-ER might be harder to shot down than 1 SPEAR, but does 1AARGM-ER harder to shot down than 4 SPEAR ?
                          As far as I understand, speed adds exponentially to the difficulty of countering the attack. First, you have much less time to detect and identify the attack as well as assign and implement an action to be taken. Your AD will have much less time, the interceptors need to be much better (faster, more performing, with bigger warheads) and the target under attack may not have time to run, hide or deploy countermeasures.

                          Then you have to consider the amount of means available to counter PGMs. Apart from EW and all the countermeasures we are talking about, even the land forces include organic AD capabilities like the new 57 mm cannons with guided and air burst rounds that will be included even on IFVs. So yes I would take any time 1 AARGM-ER over 4 Spears that can be downed by simple AAA and need the carrier to come much closer, in fact being fully in range of modern mid and long range SAMs.

                          ActionJackson
                          Supersonic missiles require expensive, supersonic decoys for swarming attacks.
                          What kind of swarming attacks are you referring to? Do we have examples of such modes having been used already?
                          Last edited by LMFS; 14th June 2019, 17:51.

                          Comment

                          • djcross
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 5423

                            #14
                            A lesson from the past which is still relevant when discussing supersonic missile attacks...

                            In the '60s, '70s and '80s, NATO spent a lot of energy worrying about AS-4 "Kitchen" (KH-22) supersonic anti-shipping missile attacks on NATO shipping bringing reinforcements to Western Europe.

                            There was high confidence the supersonic missiles could be detected, targeted and disabled by short range missiles such as Sea Sparrow and Phalanx CWIS.

                            The supersonic Kitchens maneuvered very little in terminal phase (essentially traveled in a predictable nearly straight line) which made targeting easy.

                            The problem was some of the missiles would be disabled at a short distance to the ship and supersonic missile debris could still cause substantial damage. The solutions were twofold:
                            1. Enhanced deception jamming of the Kitchen seeker because a supersonic missile cannot maneuver sufficiently to correct for a small seeker error
                            2. Improved kinetic defense by fielding CEC, AEGIS, SM2, ESSM and RAM, which increased the engagement distance and made the debris hazard to ships become nil

                            Comment

                            • F/A-XX
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 206

                              #15
                              There is a substantial difference between a 57mm cannon on an IFV using airburst shells and a dedicated radar-directed anti-aircraft gun system using the same sort of ammunition. The former may be able to lase and engage a helicopter at moderate ranges with such ammo but it's going to have no chance of shooting down an incoming PGM like the radar-guided system could potentially do
                              Last edited by F/A-XX; 18th June 2019, 21:42.

                              Comment

                              • LMFS
                                Rank 4 Registered User
                                • Feb 2018
                                • 472

                                #16
                                Originally posted by F/A-XX View Post
                                There is a substantial difference between a 57mm cannon on an IFV using airburst shells a dedicated radar-directed anti-aircraft gun system using the same sort of ammunition. The former may be able to lase and engage a helicopter at moderate ranges with such ammo but it's going to have no chance of shooting down an incoming PGM like the radar-guided system could potentially do
                                I am not sure to what extent IFVs will be capable for AD, but they are supposed to be linked in the same battle management system in order to share targeting data. It is not the same to have only AD units taking care of an attack than having all IFVs contributing and raising your saturation threshold manifold. BTW the ZAK-57 AD system based on the 57 mm cannon uses EO detection and guides the ammo with laser (beam riding), not radar from what I know.

                                Good info about the system here:
                                http://nevskii-bastion.ru/zak-57-derivation-pvo/

                                Comment

                                Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                Collapse

                                 

                                Working...
                                X