6 ms·

The Russians have traditionally been very good at radio direction finding. They could then send in land forces or one of three model "Wild Weasel" aircraft they

by chiph 5y ago

The Russians have traditionally been very good at radio direction finding. They could then send in land forces or one of three model "Wild Weasel" aircraft they had - the Yak28N, the Mig-25BM in small numbers, then the Su-24M. The role of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to tempt enemy radar operators into turning on their units and start transmitting. Whereupon the aircraft would launch an anti-radiation (radio-homing, not "nuclear") missile at the transmitter. The USAF has the AGM-88 and the Russians have the Kh-58 and the Kh-31 to do this. Note that all this happens while the Wild Weasel is being attacked by surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft fire. As to why the Russians are being so ineffective at SEAD in Ukraine - no idea but I'm not going to give them any improvement suggestions.

mc32 5y ago
Was this what the Israelis did against the Egyptians equipped with Russian radars and AA artillery.
sudosysgen 5y ago
The reason they aren't as good at SEAD in Ukraine - in no way that ineffective - is simple. NATO is flying AWACS and warning Ukrainian air defences of possible threats. In a serious peer-to-peer total conflict the AWACS would be shot down and the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to get away with much of anything.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Is this why NATO doesn’t want a no-fly zone?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    No-fly zone is a highly disingenuous and misleading term meaning "we will fly our planes only and shoot down yours", so no, this isn't why they don't want a no fly zone. The reason they don't is because that would be an act of war and difficult to enforce.
    - jmnicolas 5y ago
      And will lead to WWIII with nukes flying left and right!
  - chiph 5y ago
    You can only establish a no-fly zone once you have control of the airspace. Which would require using NATO aircraft to shoot down all Russian aircraft over what is a non-NATO member. It goes without saying that that would seriously escalate the conflict.
- sbierwagen 5y ago
  AWACS only has a range of 250 miles, it can't see through the planet. From the Polish border that only reaches as far as Kiev. I would wonder more about space-based observation, either ELINT or active radar.
  - throwoutway 5y ago
    Can satellites provide active radar tracking of enemy aircraft? And if so, in sufficient quantity of orbital passes to avoid gaps? If so, why does the US still rely on AWACS?
    - sbierwagen 5y ago
      >Can satellites provide active radar tracking Physically, yes. There are plenty of radar satellites. Power is a problem. AWACS radars draw dozens of kilowatts. You very much want lots of power in military radar, since you're often illuminating something that can be engineered to have a small RCS or is actively spoofing the return signal. This forces you to have big solar panels, big radiator panels for electronics waste heat, big batteries so you can actually run the radar in the 50% of the orbit when you're in Earthshade, big antenna for high gain, big fuel tanks because you have so much atmospheric drag that you're reboosting all the time. An AWACS satellite would be bus-sized, if not bigger. This hypothetical AWACS satellite would also have the problem that it would have a perfectly predictable orbital track, so you could target it with a very high gain antenna for jamming. And, of course, antisatellite missiles exist, and AWACS birds would badly tempt future adversaries to make yet more orbital debris. Some of these problems could be mitigated with a larger constellation, which you would want anyway so you can run lower altitudes and (as you note) better coverage. Unfortunately, running a Starlink-style megaconstellation with hardware purchased from military aerospace contractors would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. Several NRO birds are known to use synthetic aperture radar, (LACROSSE/ONYX) but almost certainly not for detecting aircraft in flight. Others are for detecting radiated signals. (NOSS) For civilian (-ish) attempts to launch surveillance megaconstellations, see PlanetScope: https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/ https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/
- guelo 5y ago
  Is this reported, rumors, or just a bunch?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    It's semi-reported, the US has been flying AWACS around the clock and reported to be giving intel to Ukraine. Beyond that, this is kind of what you'd want an AWACS to do.
    - tyrfing 5y ago
      Sharing of that sort of real time info has been specifically denied repeatedly: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/biden-administration-walks-fine-line-intelligence-sharing-ukraine-rcna18542 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/biden-administra...
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        No, it hasn't been denied. They said they didn't give "real time targeting". This means that they are indeed giving real-time info. What I described isn't targeting.
        tyrfing 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you interpret giving air defense actionable information on incoming 800mph planes as anything but "real time targeting".
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's pretty obvious. "SEAD group incoming into your position from 220, turn off your radars" simply cannot be used to target. So it's not targeting information. It's only targeting information if it can be used to attack, which is not what we're talking about here.
    - earleybird 5y ago
- dylan604 5y ago
  In total conflict, AWACS would have friends to protect it, but yeah, they are pretty vulnerable. They know this and accept it.
epolanski 5y ago
> I'm not going to give them any improvement suggestions. They were desperate to read those. /s
- investinwaffles 5y ago
  Don’t underestimate the value of any suggestions in warfare. Some guy (or woman) once threw out “let’s use condoms to protect rifle muzzles from seawater and sand incursion”. Did it work, maybe? Sort of a monkeys writing Shakespeare thing. It may not be of value, but why take the chance of your conscience or nationality dictates neutrality.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    I highly doubt the Russian military is mentally nimble enough to put in effect a suggestion some lowly analyst have read on the internet. It's probably why they're not as effective as we thought.

by chiph 5y ago

mc32 5y ago

Was this what the Israelis did against the Egyptians equipped with Russian radars and AA artillery.

sudosysgen 5y ago

The reason they aren't as good at SEAD in Ukraine - in no way that ineffective - is simple. NATO is flying AWACS and warning Ukrainian air defences of possible threats. In a serious peer-to-peer total conflict the AWACS would be shot down and the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to get away with much of anything.

elliekelly 5y ago
Is this why NATO doesn’t want a no-fly zone?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  No-fly zone is a highly disingenuous and misleading term meaning "we will fly our planes only and shoot down yours", so no, this isn't why they don't want a no fly zone. The reason they don't is because that would be an act of war and difficult to enforce.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    And will lead to WWIII with nukes flying left and right!
- chiph 5y ago
  You can only establish a no-fly zone once you have control of the airspace. Which would require using NATO aircraft to shoot down all Russian aircraft over what is a non-NATO member. It goes without saying that that would seriously escalate the conflict.
sbierwagen 5y ago
AWACS only has a range of 250 miles, it can't see through the planet. From the Polish border that only reaches as far as Kiev. I would wonder more about space-based observation, either ELINT or active radar.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  Can satellites provide active radar tracking of enemy aircraft? And if so, in sufficient quantity of orbital passes to avoid gaps? If so, why does the US still rely on AWACS?
  - sbierwagen 5y ago
    >Can satellites provide active radar tracking Physically, yes. There are plenty of radar satellites. Power is a problem. AWACS radars draw dozens of kilowatts. You very much want lots of power in military radar, since you're often illuminating something that can be engineered to have a small RCS or is actively spoofing the return signal. This forces you to have big solar panels, big radiator panels for electronics waste heat, big batteries so you can actually run the radar in the 50% of the orbit when you're in Earthshade, big antenna for high gain, big fuel tanks because you have so much atmospheric drag that you're reboosting all the time. An AWACS satellite would be bus-sized, if not bigger. This hypothetical AWACS satellite would also have the problem that it would have a perfectly predictable orbital track, so you could target it with a very high gain antenna for jamming. And, of course, antisatellite missiles exist, and AWACS birds would badly tempt future adversaries to make yet more orbital debris. Some of these problems could be mitigated with a larger constellation, which you would want anyway so you can run lower altitudes and (as you note) better coverage. Unfortunately, running a Starlink-style megaconstellation with hardware purchased from military aerospace contractors would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. Several NRO birds are known to use synthetic aperture radar, (LACROSSE/ONYX) but almost certainly not for detecting aircraft in flight. Others are for detecting radiated signals. (NOSS) For civilian (-ish) attempts to launch surveillance megaconstellations, see PlanetScope: https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/ https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/
guelo 5y ago
Is this reported, rumors, or just a bunch?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It's semi-reported, the US has been flying AWACS around the clock and reported to be giving intel to Ukraine. Beyond that, this is kind of what you'd want an AWACS to do.
  - tyrfing 5y ago
    Sharing of that sort of real time info has been specifically denied repeatedly: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/biden-administration-walks-fine-line-intelligence-sharing-ukraine-rcna18542 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/biden-administra...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      No, it hasn't been denied. They said they didn't give "real time targeting". This means that they are indeed giving real-time info. What I described isn't targeting.
      - tyrfing 5y ago
        I'm not sure how you interpret giving air defense actionable information on incoming 800mph planes as anything but "real time targeting".
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It's pretty obvious. "SEAD group incoming into your position from 220, turn off your radars" simply cannot be used to target. So it's not targeting information. It's only targeting information if it can be used to attack, which is not what we're talking about here.
  - earleybird 5y ago
dylan604 5y ago
In total conflict, AWACS would have friends to protect it, but yeah, they are pretty vulnerable. They know this and accept it.

epolanski 5y ago

> I'm not going to give them any improvement suggestions. They were desperate to read those. /s

investinwaffles 5y ago
Don’t underestimate the value of any suggestions in warfare. Some guy (or woman) once threw out “let’s use condoms to protect rifle muzzles from seawater and sand incursion”. Did it work, maybe? Sort of a monkeys writing Shakespeare thing. It may not be of value, but why take the chance of your conscience or nationality dictates neutrality.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  I highly doubt the Russian military is mentally nimble enough to put in effect a suggestion some lowly analyst have read on the internet. It's probably why they're not as effective as we thought.