7 ms·

Also, the S400 and practically all ground-based long range radar systems have electronic footprints that make them stand out on sensor platforms designed to det

Also, the S400 and practically all ground-based long range radar systems have electronic footprints that make them stand out on sensor platforms designed to detect radars like high powered flashlights in a dark room allowing them to be easily mapped (for avoidance) and targeted (for destruction, if necessary) from over the horizon and far beyond the range of the systems themselves. Systems like the Sx00 are very useful if there are multiple rings of them surrounding a static high-value target and you want to defeat a fleet of B-52s (or certain types of ballistic missiles) that are approaching. They are borderline useless against any adversary that has low observability aircraft and a modern suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) capability. Israel has demonstrated this repeatedly, but Russian marketing is very good and (mainly Middle Eastern) countries are still pumping wasted dollars into buying air defense systems. In years of conflict Israel has launched thousands (2,000 in 2018 alone) of missiles at Syrian targets, and a grand total of one (1) F-16I has been shot down, and that was because the pilots were cocky (both survived) and they were loitering at high altitude doing battle damage assessments. In response to the shoot-down, the launchers that fired the missile were destroyed the same day. Not only do the Russian missiles keep missing, but Israel keeps using their anti-missile missiles to shoot down the Russian missiles before they can fall on populated areas after missing their targets.

mrtksn 7y ago
I don’t recall s300-s400 being deployed and fail though. It always was some very old system and the downed plane was hit by s200.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  I don't agree with all the bashing of the S-400 here, but Russian performance has been "disappointing" in terms of demonstrating combat capability. "The obvious question that remains unanswered is whether Russia chose not to engage S-400s, or was simply unable to, whether because of American nonkinetic capabilities impacting those system or some other reason. Given the pre-attack notice given by the Pentagon to Russian forces through a deconfliction line, as well as the fact that no strikes were targeted at the air defenses themselves, analysts lean toward the former." https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-more-from-the-strikes-in-syria-america-or-russia/ https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-... In short, Russia has S400s in Syria. Russian government officials claimed Russia would shoot down the Tomawhawks. Russians knew the strikes were coming. Yet, they did not use the S400. To me, there are no two ways about it - Russia did not have the capability to engage even the legacy Tomawhawk missiles.
  - azernik 7y ago
    Can't speak to the interaction with the Americans, but when it comes to Israel there is an agreement between Russia and Israel on spheres of influence in Syria; Israel doesn't interfere with Russian strikes on rebels in the north and east (which Israel doesn't care about), and Russia doesn't interfere with Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian forces in the south and west (which Russia doesn't care about). The two countries just don't have a clear enough conflict of interest to want to get into a fight about it.
    - ohaideredevs 7y ago
      1. These were US missiles. 2. Russian government officials stated they would shoot them down. 3. Russia had NOTHING to lose by shooting down missiles in defense of an ally, e.g. no political risk. 4. Russia had everything to gain by demonstrating the capability to deter a NATO strike, especially given the context of using Syria to advertise its weapons. Israel is a separate issue, if you want to discuss it. Very nice of Israel to get Russia's plane shot down by hiding behind it.
      - azernik 7y ago
        The point I was trying to get at is that everyone involved in Syria is perfectly capable of staying out of trouble when their core interests are not at stake. I would not read too much into the failure of the Russians to intercept well-telegraphed, highly-publicized attacks on non-Russian targets, just like I wouldn't read too much into the failure of Americans to intercept rare Russian airstrikes on their SDF allies.
  - greedo 7y ago
    The S400s were deployed in response to the downing of a Russian intel aircraft that got mixed up with Syrian aircraft and shot down by Israel. It was deployed to protect Russian aircraft, not Syrian bases. So the Russians had no incentive to expose the operational capabilities of the S400 systems to the West. Just as the US limits how it deploys the F-22 in the area.
toss1 7y ago
Indeed! And form working with guys in the stealth/radar biz, there's a saying about trying to use radar to guide your missiles: "He who lights up first gets smoked" As in, once you turn on your tracking radar, you effectively shine a really bright beacon for anyone to see. If you are the ground station trying to get a lock on the thing that the long-range area radar saw, suddenly you are the brightest target in the area. You might have a few seconds before the plane you are trying to hit sends a missile right down your beam. Same for a pilot if he tries to scan for a target.
- azernik 7y ago
  Similar to the logic of using artillery against a modern conventional army. Counter-battery radars can pinpoint a gun or ballistic launcher by tracking the shells/missiles, so you've got to either shoot and scoot with self-propelled guns or do like Hamas does and remotely fire missiles from an expendable launcher.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  A couple of questions from a civvie: does one physically separate the radar from the (manned) station using it so you only get borked cheapish equipment rather than dead people and expensive ground-based station wrecked? And isn't faking a few radar 'lights' a good way to use up the opposition aircraft's missiles? Naive I know but it's not my area.
  - azernik 7y ago
    The radar is usually one of the most expensive components in the system. Yes, they're usually separate trailers from other components of the system, but losing a precious radar is still a big blow.
  - SEJeff 7y ago
    Excellent question, and it is standard operating procedure. We had ~100m cables for our actual dishes that we used to control the Shadow 200 and always kept them far away from where we were flying if at all feasible. Most nations do this, however some missiles are set to go towards the rf and then switch to visual identification of targets to say blow up the control station.
zepearl 7y ago
The S400s you're referrint to are the ones that Turkey just bought from Russia (and which caused all the mess with Trump not being happy about it), right?
- SEJeff 7y ago
  It doesn't have a thing to do with Trump being unhappy, it is the Pentagon that is hopping mad. It will give the Russians access to S400 telemetry of F22 and F35 planes, something we've been very coy in giving them a chance to get. It lets them figure out how to use their radars against any nation with F22 / F35 planes.
  - SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
    That's the official Pentagon line, but it's not it. What are they saying, the S-400 are backdoored with a network connection to Russia? And Russia already has S-400s in Syria, with Israel and the US operating F-35s in the region... The real reason is the US doesn't want to set the precedent for NATO countries buying weapons outside of NATO, and you can be sure the military industrial complex has a huge hand in that.
    - joey_bob 7y ago
      Well the concern has more to do with the purchasing of S400 coming with Russian technical advisors for the system, who you might say are backdoored with a network connection to Russia.
  - metta2uall 7y ago
    Can't Russia already fairly easily eavesdrop on F22s and F35s during military exercises from ships or by just renting a room / camping van somewhere nearby?
  - bitL 7y ago
    Didn't they already acquire them in Syria/Iraq? I bet Russians brought their latest radar tech with them when F22s were operating in the area, and now there is Israel with F35. They might be just observing and would be stupid to talk about it anyway and I doubt Turkey will get the same S400s, likely a dumbed-down export version. It's more like Turkey can't have all their tech obliterated instantly if they switched sides and US manufacturers will miss some projected profit.
computerex 7y ago
You are conflating s400 with significantly older systems. Even with stealth, it's impossible to take down s400 without suffering heavy casualties. The system is decentralized, and highly mobile. You take down one command node, another one takes its place.
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  The L- and X-band radars used by the S400 are exceedingly easy to jam, and no matter what Russia says they have not figured out a way around the laws of physics that enables them to reliably target low-observable aircraft. So yeah, if an F-15 blindly stumbles within the effective range of an S400 it will be shot down. The fingerprint of the S400's radar are detectable from thousands of kilometers away and a nice little icon will be plopped onto the pre-mission overlays before the F-15 takes off. You don't even have to detect the radar beam, you can detect the data link. As for casualties, what casualties? The only casualties a drone launching a glide bomb results in are those on the receiving end.
  - ohaideredevs 7y ago
    I am with computerex. Your explanations are extremely simplistic and biased. S400s can toggle on and off, share data, have Pantsir systems around them, etc. You ignore the same problems with air platforms emitting. Your claim about detecting the data link is absurd.
    - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
      RF is RF. If it is emitted it can be detected. Even point to point microwave links can be detected off-axis. Hundreds of watts of point-to-point means dozens of watts of sidelobes. Dozens of watts in the middle of the desert is easy to detect. If the AN/MLQ-40 could do it at tens of kilometers 20 years ago I bet datalinks could be detected from space today.
      - computerex 7y ago
        You are literally making statements that don't make any sense and I'd bet you can't back up anything with a primary source.

mrtksn 7y ago

I don’t recall s300-s400 being deployed and fail though. It always was some very old system and the downed plane was hit by s200.

ohaideredevs 7y ago
I don't agree with all the bashing of the S-400 here, but Russian performance has been "disappointing" in terms of demonstrating combat capability. "The obvious question that remains unanswered is whether Russia chose not to engage S-400s, or was simply unable to, whether because of American nonkinetic capabilities impacting those system or some other reason. Given the pre-attack notice given by the Pentagon to Russian forces through a deconfliction line, as well as the fact that no strikes were targeted at the air defenses themselves, analysts lean toward the former." https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-more-from-the-strikes-in-syria-america-or-russia/ https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/04/20/who-learned-... In short, Russia has S400s in Syria. Russian government officials claimed Russia would shoot down the Tomawhawks. Russians knew the strikes were coming. Yet, they did not use the S400. To me, there are no two ways about it - Russia did not have the capability to engage even the legacy Tomawhawk missiles.
- azernik 7y ago
  Can't speak to the interaction with the Americans, but when it comes to Israel there is an agreement between Russia and Israel on spheres of influence in Syria; Israel doesn't interfere with Russian strikes on rebels in the north and east (which Israel doesn't care about), and Russia doesn't interfere with Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian forces in the south and west (which Russia doesn't care about). The two countries just don't have a clear enough conflict of interest to want to get into a fight about it.
  - ohaideredevs 7y ago
    1. These were US missiles. 2. Russian government officials stated they would shoot them down. 3. Russia had NOTHING to lose by shooting down missiles in defense of an ally, e.g. no political risk. 4. Russia had everything to gain by demonstrating the capability to deter a NATO strike, especially given the context of using Syria to advertise its weapons. Israel is a separate issue, if you want to discuss it. Very nice of Israel to get Russia's plane shot down by hiding behind it.
    - azernik 7y ago
      The point I was trying to get at is that everyone involved in Syria is perfectly capable of staying out of trouble when their core interests are not at stake. I would not read too much into the failure of the Russians to intercept well-telegraphed, highly-publicized attacks on non-Russian targets, just like I wouldn't read too much into the failure of Americans to intercept rare Russian airstrikes on their SDF allies.
- greedo 7y ago
  The S400s were deployed in response to the downing of a Russian intel aircraft that got mixed up with Syrian aircraft and shot down by Israel. It was deployed to protect Russian aircraft, not Syrian bases. So the Russians had no incentive to expose the operational capabilities of the S400 systems to the West. Just as the US limits how it deploys the F-22 in the area.

toss1 7y ago

Indeed! And form working with guys in the stealth/radar biz, there's a saying about trying to use radar to guide your missiles: "He who lights up first gets smoked" As in, once you turn on your tracking radar, you effectively shine a really bright beacon for anyone to see. If you are the ground station trying to get a lock on the thing that the long-range area radar saw, suddenly you are the brightest target in the area. You might have a few seconds before the plane you are trying to hit sends a missile right down your beam. Same for a pilot if he tries to scan for a target.

azernik 7y ago
Similar to the logic of using artillery against a modern conventional army. Counter-battery radars can pinpoint a gun or ballistic launcher by tracking the shells/missiles, so you've got to either shoot and scoot with self-propelled guns or do like Hamas does and remotely fire missiles from an expendable launcher.
tempguy9999 7y ago
A couple of questions from a civvie: does one physically separate the radar from the (manned) station using it so you only get borked cheapish equipment rather than dead people and expensive ground-based station wrecked? And isn't faking a few radar 'lights' a good way to use up the opposition aircraft's missiles? Naive I know but it's not my area.
- azernik 7y ago
  The radar is usually one of the most expensive components in the system. Yes, they're usually separate trailers from other components of the system, but losing a precious radar is still a big blow.
- SEJeff 7y ago
  Excellent question, and it is standard operating procedure. We had ~100m cables for our actual dishes that we used to control the Shadow 200 and always kept them far away from where we were flying if at all feasible. Most nations do this, however some missiles are set to go towards the rf and then switch to visual identification of targets to say blow up the control station.

zepearl 7y ago

The S400s you're referrint to are the ones that Turkey just bought from Russia (and which caused all the mess with Trump not being happy about it), right?

SEJeff 7y ago
It doesn't have a thing to do with Trump being unhappy, it is the Pentagon that is hopping mad. It will give the Russians access to S400 telemetry of F22 and F35 planes, something we've been very coy in giving them a chance to get. It lets them figure out how to use their radars against any nation with F22 / F35 planes.
- SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
  That's the official Pentagon line, but it's not it. What are they saying, the S-400 are backdoored with a network connection to Russia? And Russia already has S-400s in Syria, with Israel and the US operating F-35s in the region... The real reason is the US doesn't want to set the precedent for NATO countries buying weapons outside of NATO, and you can be sure the military industrial complex has a huge hand in that.
  - joey_bob 7y ago
    Well the concern has more to do with the purchasing of S400 coming with Russian technical advisors for the system, who you might say are backdoored with a network connection to Russia.
- metta2uall 7y ago
  Can't Russia already fairly easily eavesdrop on F22s and F35s during military exercises from ships or by just renting a room / camping van somewhere nearby?
- bitL 7y ago
  Didn't they already acquire them in Syria/Iraq? I bet Russians brought their latest radar tech with them when F22s were operating in the area, and now there is Israel with F35. They might be just observing and would be stupid to talk about it anyway and I doubt Turkey will get the same S400s, likely a dumbed-down export version. It's more like Turkey can't have all their tech obliterated instantly if they switched sides and US manufacturers will miss some projected profit.

computerex 7y ago

You are conflating s400 with significantly older systems. Even with stealth, it's impossible to take down s400 without suffering heavy casualties. The system is decentralized, and highly mobile. You take down one command node, another one takes its place.

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
The L- and X-band radars used by the S400 are exceedingly easy to jam, and no matter what Russia says they have not figured out a way around the laws of physics that enables them to reliably target low-observable aircraft. So yeah, if an F-15 blindly stumbles within the effective range of an S400 it will be shot down. The fingerprint of the S400's radar are detectable from thousands of kilometers away and a nice little icon will be plopped onto the pre-mission overlays before the F-15 takes off. You don't even have to detect the radar beam, you can detect the data link. As for casualties, what casualties? The only casualties a drone launching a glide bomb results in are those on the receiving end.
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  I am with computerex. Your explanations are extremely simplistic and biased. S400s can toggle on and off, share data, have Pantsir systems around them, etc. You ignore the same problems with air platforms emitting. Your claim about detecting the data link is absurd.
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    RF is RF. If it is emitted it can be detected. Even point to point microwave links can be detected off-axis. Hundreds of watts of point-to-point means dozens of watts of sidelobes. Dozens of watts in the middle of the desert is easy to detect. If the AN/MLQ-40 could do it at tens of kilometers 20 years ago I bet datalinks could be detected from space today.
    - computerex 7y ago
      You are literally making statements that don't make any sense and I'd bet you can't back up anything with a primary source.