Ok – so the issue of Israeli raids into Syria has a military technical dimension as well as political. I see a lot of comments on this site and others where people wonder if Israel is really able to knock out Syrian air defenses. Why doesn’t Russia give the Syrians S300s or even S400s and even whether these latest Russian SAM weapons could even defeat the Israeli air force? Well the short answer is that Israeli jets or anyone else’s for that matter stand no chance against Russian air defenses in Syria the long answer is a bit more involved and interesting. The question of SAMs vs air power is one that is of utmost importance in modern warfare and which has a long history reviewing that history is quite useful.
The first place to start is with a general comment about popular conceptions and misconceptions. The people of the West have been literally bombarded over the last several decades about the technological superiority of Western air power to the point that many believe it is invincible. But the lessons of history paint a very different picture. It is instructive to start with the Vietnam war as this was the first mighty test of modern air power [US] vs modern air defenses [Soviet].
I think it would come as a surprise to many that the United States lost as many as 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam against 150 to 200 aircraft lost by the North Vietnamese. Note that the North downed no less than 17 B52 heavy bombers with SAM shots. Here is a good recent article by Carlo Kopp (see full comment for all links). Kopp gives a good historical overview of the SAM vs air power dance starting with SE Asia [Vietnam] then on to the ME and the various Arab-Israeli conflicts on to Desert Storm [the first Iraq war and finally closing the loop with the Nato air war against Serbia in 1999. In brief the Vietnam war scorecard was that US airpower was not a match for Soviet air defense.
Let us now examine the 1973 Arab-Israeli war specifically the aspect of Soviet-supplied SAMs vs Western-supplied Israeli aircraft. As in all conflicts arriving at precise figures is something of an inexact science since neither side is open or truthful about its losses incidentally the US is one of the biggest historical liars when it comes to acknowledging its losses only doing so when the evidence is unassailable.
Kopp notes ‘….It is widely acknowledged that the Israelis suffered heavy losses of aircraft during the fighting in 1973. Exactly how many were lost to SAMs, and to which type of SAM, has been less well documented. Israeli public claims are that 303 aircraft were lost in combat…’
We have a now declassified memo from one Henry A. Kissinger dated Oct. 22, 1973 which summarizes a discussion with top Israeli officials while the 1973 October War was raging the participants included PM Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan.
Again as in Vietnam the Soviet air defense equipment proved formidable while the Israelis did eventually win the war the Soviet SAMs were seen as a huge problem by US military planners.‘…The losses suffered by Israel in the 1973 war were so high that it indirectly spawned the United States stealth aircraft program, Project HAVE BLUE. The U.S. estimated that without a solution to the SAM problem, even the United States would suffer depletion of its Air Force within two weeks of a conflict erupting between the U.S. and Soviet Union. The Israelis had lost 109 aircraft in 18 days…’
The next ME conflict was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the subsequent Israeli air war against Syria in which they decimated the same Syrian air defenses that had proved so formidable in 1973.
Now there is no other way to say this but this is complete nonsense and wishful thinking by 1979 the USSR had already fielded the potent S300 and fourth generation air superiority jets like the Sukhoi Su27 were well into their flight test programs. To think that the Syrian debacle of 1982 caused serious consternation among Soviet military men is insane as we shall see there was nothing wrong with the Soviet equipment used by the Syrians problem was the way the Syrians used it. The Syrians in 1982 and the Iraqis in 1991 did have good Soviet air defense equipment and were routed nonetheless but here is the important point when it comes to any kind of military conflict whether on land, sea or air the hardware and equipment is just one part of the equation equally important are things like discipline, training, tactics and strategy. As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, “the Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn’t want to dig latrines — seriously.” The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle. Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to “hide” them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air. It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage.
According to a 1981 article in Soviet Military Review, alternate firing positions, defensive ambushes, regular repositioning of mobile SAMs to confuse enemy intelligence, and the emplacement of dummy SAM sites are fundamental considerations for the effective deployment and survivability of ground-based air defenses.”
It should also be noted that the Israelis deserve a lot of credit for a meticulously planned and executed operation. Though the IAF was actively involved in electronic warfare even during the earlier War of Attrition, operating converted KC-97 transports for the role, the losses sustained in 1973 were taken very seriously, leading to a growing emphasis on electronic warfare and surveillance…’What happened after the SAM victory against Israel in 1973 is that they realized they needed to find a way to counter this deadly threat…they focused on electronic warfare…Airborne early Warning [AEW]…ELINT [electronic intelligence and surveillance]…radar jamming and radar-homing missiles [anti-radiation missiles or ARMs]. Israel purchased Airborne Early Warning aircraft from the US specifically the Grumman E2-C ‘Hawkeye’ which is a smaller but capable platform used on US aircraft carriers refitted two Boeing 707 transports as Elint and jamming platforms and quite importantly focused on developing remotely piloted vehicles. (please continue to read the rest of the comment in the post “What happened and why”).
Besides the legacy equipment Syria has the quite modern and deadly Buk and the Pantsir which has already drawn blood in the 2012 downing of the Turkish jet there can be little doubt that even the legacy equipment has been deeply upgraded. We can also safely assume that with the significant Russian military presence in country that the Syrian missile crews are now very well trained and disciplined.The bottom line is that there is no conceivable scenario where Israel could inflict any real damage on Syrian air defense. On the other hand the Israelis are playing with fire if they continue their reckless aggression. It is quite possible that Syrian SAM fire on March 17 either damaged or even resulted in the writeoff of an Israeli jet. From a political angle it is conceivable that the Russians have been urging the Syrians to show restraint but clearly that does not apply to Israeli airspace violations and open aggression against Syrian troops.
The Israelis have been warned, that’s why their ambassador was called on the carpet in Moscow. Anyone who thinks that VVP is not serious or that there is some ‘nudge-wink’ going on between him and Israel is obviously a fool.
I have read all that was just said , but why does it seem like the Moscow have specifically asked Damascus not to use any of the up-to-date Russian supplied weapons against Israeli aggression?
http://theduran.com/syria-threatens-scud-missile-launch-israeli-attacks-continue/
Why should Syrians have to defend themselves against the criminal Zionist entity with out-dated Soviet era weapons?
I know that Putin is trying to balance a lot of relations in Syria, vis-a-vis Israel, Turkey and the US etc. and in doing so is trying to avoid appearing cavalier and irresponsible in providing game-changing weapons to the Syrian government and theatre.
Russia is aware of the tripwires out there and is reluctant to get dragged into a major war in the region, and this is understandable.
I can assure you however, that this caution is not appreciated by any of these countries and the gesture will not be reciprocated.
If anything, for these countres, this action by Russia, only serves to make Moscow looks weak.
Russia should be aware that Syria is not looking to acquire S-300s to act aggressively towards it neighbours.
Syria has not sought war with its nrighbours.
Instead, it is Syria that has had war imposed upon it.
Therefore, Syria needs these weapons to protect its citizens, borders and sovreignty from aggressive neighbours like Israel and Turkey, especially Israel, that has been tormenting Syria for years, with impunity.
As an ally, Russia, must be fortright in ensuring that its friends have the necessary tools to defend thenselves.
I thought that Moscow had learned from the embarassing episode with Iran and the S-300s that were denied Tehran, in order to curry favor with Washington.
Trying to suck up to the US and Israel, will not earn Russia any brownie points. If they have not realized that by now, then something is wrong in the Kremlin.
The Israelis are notorious cowards, who have made a national pastime of tormenting Palestinian women and children.
In 2006 we all saw how members of the IOF cried like babies and fled in terror when confronted by Hezbollah.
A firm slap from Syria in defense of its sovreignty delivered via the S-300 System will send a strong message to the gang of war criminals in Tel-A-Viv.
Quite simple, and very ancient : “Don’t train your enemy.” Why expose the capabilities / limitations of your most advanced kit?
also anon is absolutely correct. Anonymous’ comment states clearly the Israelis learned from previous air-war debacles. This latest incident was merely a “taste” of what Israel can expect if it decides to escalate even a bit, as the US/NATO/Zionist/Rothschild War Against Assad is being lost. The US/Israeli tactic is to draw/hold Syrian/Hezbolla forces away from the areas where US troops are setting up to create a de facto Kurdistan inside Syria, Iraq and Turkey. The Penta-goons want to delay the SAA/Hezbolla clean-up of “moderate terrorists” on the Western Front, as every day more paid terrorists figure out they picked the losing side and decide to live rather than be exterminated along with the few remaining lunatic jihadists… the US/Israeli/Saudi advisers have long since fled, given what happened to their compatriots in the “intelligence centre” near Aleppo.
The other parallel is that in Vietnam and Korea, the US/NATO pilots originally thought they were safe. This incident shows a new generation of Israeli pilots they are not, despite all the hi-tech they have been told protects them.
Russia has taught the Syrians to have the discipline to “hold fire until you see the whites of their eyes”. And the Israeli ambassador would have been told in no uncertain terms, if Israel wants to have its borders respected, it better respect Syria’s.
Id also say its a little harder to train and perfect the AA-troops than a two years in actually limited conditions … russia has decades of progress, not just technical, but most importantly, human – in the structure they work, the inherited knowledge and experience in older staff and training new recruits. Its also to point out, that basic school-skills are a big thing and russians were good in math and physics, and get probably better education here than Syrian AA-folks have. … Russia has long-term plans for Syria and Id say they are trying hard to make them develope all theese things, before doing any serious engagement to both, make them effective and not to loose valuable few experienced syrian personel they trained till now, witch would have no replacement.
From what is posted here, this is very well done comment. I wish the rest had been posted along with any links included in it. I don’t even see a working link to the original comment here so I can read the missing part and check the author’s linked material.
But thanks for making this comment an article, since I missed seeing it before.
Here is a link to the comment:
/what-happened-and-why/#comment-335679
I have added in two links back to the original comment. One in the intro and the other when readers are asked to read more …. mod-hs
An excellent call by moderator MK, and the original comment by Anonymous is well worth reading – not only are there links but also quotes from the linked sources, which don’t appear here. The original article, for convenience is here: What happened and why
The first Wiki link in the original comment is broken – very important to me since it’s the Wiki record of US air losses in Vietnam. Here’s the working link: List of aircraft losses of the Vietnam War.
I have zero military experience, and I’m shocked that military campaigns result in such massive losses of aircraft to missiles. My entire learned (read: dis-informed) culture of air superiority has been turned on its head.
It now seems to me that (1) planes are at grave risk of being shot down whenever they fly into any hot zone, and that (2) such losses will rarely be admitted out loud.
So this is my new culture of air warfare that I will take from this article/comment. Many thanks to Anonymous, and to the Saker crew, for the lesson.
Grieved,
Thanks for the links. Very helpful.
Good to see your name and comment.
G
The most recent example of how an air defence can deny an air force access is in Novorussia. There, the ukrainian air force was gradually whittled down by a few manpads and light aa guns. By the end of the last ukro attack, they had almost ceased using air support, since the Novorussians were able to down aircraft effectively enough to make it almost certain the attackers would suffer crippling loses. Granted the ukrainian air force was in poor shape, but the Novorussians were a makeshift assortment of rebel groups with sparse amount of air defence equipment and probably not a lot of training.
Grieved, wait till you see the next round of _real_ naval hostilities. If you think the missile kill ratio of fast moving, small and agile planes in 3D is bad, the effects of modern anti-ship missiles against virtually stationary, huge barn doors sitting on a 2D surface is going to shock you much more.
The headache NATO has is that its war doctrines, weapons, tactics and strategies have been developed under the assumption that they will have absolute air superiority. It’s dawning on them that that was then, and the now they’re facing is quite different.
That’s why they’re flapping their arms and beating their chests. It’s also why they’re sending 100s in an attempt to mask their irrelevancy, instead of tens of 1000s of troops to Eastern Europe to counter “Russian aggression”. They know the Russians will not be intimidated into reacting militarily to 100s, but they fear that the Russians might react to 10s of 1000s.
More widely, a trend is becoming clear… drones, guided missiles, robotic tanks & artillery already go where humans cannot. They do it more cheaply and more effectively than any human can. A couple of $1M missiles can take down a multi-$B carrier in minutes. The multi-$B investment in training and supporting 5000 sailors goes to the bottom with it. Likewise, a $100M plane with its expensively trained pilot is no match for a missile costing a few $100k. The economics of war are being turned upside down.
Where humans are absolutely necessary, as in taking and holding territory, they’ll soon be going almost completely cyborg-ized, protected by personal armour and employing sensory & physical enhancements that make them as effective as machines with the added bonus of human on-the-scene intelligence and decision-making.
The trend that’s been revolutionizing manufacturing for the last 2-3 decades is finally being extended to war. The victims of that trend in manufacturing have been the working class humans. Likewise in war. Allowed to continue, civilian populations will be the only human targets left for military planners to destroy.
After they’ve finished with that, perhaps the machines will fight amongst themselves for a while. God only knows what for. Or not.
Paragraphs.
Even if the original was not paragraphed, it would take one minute to make it readible.
The article was paragraphed – it is just the way it presents itself on the Saker site. Please feel free to look at some recent commenter corner comments (which were all paragraphed) and you will see they are all the same when published.
From what I have read of the S-200, they were easily defeated by jamming by 1982.
Originally designed for fixed installation I believe. Standard battery was six launches set in a hexagon pattern. This pattern can be seen looking on google maps satellite images.
At the time Russia moved the S-300 into Tartus, Russian mod also announced it had completed upgrading the Syrian systems.
If this upgrade included new homing heads and radars that were largely immune to jamming, the S-200 would once again be a very potent long range SAM.
PS.
IF Russia Has ubgaraded the homing heads and radar on Syrian S-200 systems, Israeli pilots would have to rely on manoeuvring rather than EW.
This may cause a major upgrade in Israeli mil spec underwear. Something that will contain bowel incontinence
Any serious Israeli attack against Syrian air defenses would begin exactly the same way the US always starts it’s attacks – for instance against Libya or Iraq – with a massive launch of cruise missiles against the air defense radar stations and airbases. Crater the runways, destroy the aircraft in their hangers, and knock out as many missile locations as possible with unmanned aircraft and missiles. Only after knocking out most of the air defense installations would Israel and the US/NATO “allies” launch an all-out attack to overwhelm and destroy any remaining air defenses, and then move on to destroying army bases and positions.
Israel would not be attacking alone, and after 6 years of crippling civil war and invasions by several other countries Syrian defenses are greatly depleted. Russia has one (1) S-400 installation defending it’s own airbase, and some additional AA missiles on ships offshore neither of which would likely be used as they are surrounded by much larger NATO forces and too far from the Russian border – Crimea being the nearest bases – to support even if Turkey were not in the way with it’s own very large air force which would almost certainly come in on the NATO/Israeli side.
Russia has managed to accomplish a great deal with a tiny air force equivalent to a small US aircraft carrier, but they understand they can be cut off from any support at any time NATO chooses to do so since Turkey controls both access to the Black Sea/Mediterranean and Iran would not want to provide the US with an excuse to launch an all-out air war against them by permitting Russia to launch cruise missiles through Iranian airspace in a conflict with Israel/US/NATO.
The Saker keeps correctly reminding us just how small and vulnerable the Russian presence in Syria really is, and what a careful balancing act Putin has been conducting as Syria and Russia work to defeat the US proxy forces without giving the US and it’s NATO thug “allies”the excuse they are craving to launch a full-on air war and invasion of Syria.
As for Vietnam, the US did lose a lot of aircraft over North Vietnam which had a multi-layered defense ranging from SAM-2s intended to take out high-altitude B-52s to various outdated MIG 17 and 19s with a handful of MIG 21s and a lot of WW II era anti-aircraft artillery (FLAK) at mid altitude and machine guns and rifles for the tree-top attacks. The US never succeeded in destroying the small Vietnamese air force, but the US losses did not prevent them from continuing the air war for 8 or 9 years either. It was a similar situation to Korea, with China in the background.
The situation in Syria, like Iraq or Libya, is completely different with US/NATO bases completely surrounding Syria, and aircraft carriers on both sides, not to mention the 400 or so top of the line Israeli jets.
Do you think Russia would sit and wait while all these cruise missile were fired ? Every Nato/US ship within 500km would be destroyed . Incirlik airbase destroyed , Israel would be flattened . Russia has Iskander missiles in Syria . Fact . Intentionally left out uncovered long enough for satellite detection. Russia will use tactical nukes . Fact . Your summation Iran wouldn’t let Russia use airspace is ridiculous . Iran is the prize . With Russia out of the way Iran would be next . For this reason I believe any attack on Syria by Nato/Israel/US will start a sequence of events that will lead to WW3. There is too much at stake for Russia and US in Syria/Iraq/middle east . Gas supplies to Europe for Russia v death of the Petro $ for US . Russia / China / Iran future looks promising. Eurasia/Silk Road projects . They have much to live for . This is often mistaken as weakness . The US on the other hand will find itself isolated and with death of US currency so too it’s influence . Which ever way I look at it I come to the some sad conclusion . The elites who run the US,EU need a war to save their way of life . Their very existence . WW3 is inevitable .
zed,
Unfortunately, I agree with you. WW3 is inevitable.
U.S. will not accept loss of objectives they were looking to gain by the destruction of Syria. Between the Qatar pipeline and Israeli “Security” it is unacceptable to leave Syria as a sovereign nation with it’s right to choose relations and cooperation with Russia and Iran intact. When I say U.S., I speak of the corrupt Deep state and not the willfully ignorant sheep of the country.
– Israel will never accept Syria as a sovereign nation which can equally defend itself.
– US corrupt Deep State will not give up the Qatari pipeline through Syria.
– Iran will not accept losing its land routes to support Hezbolla since Hezbolla is their low tech MAD solution to defense from Israel.
– Syria will not accept getting wiped off the map and turned into whatever everyone wants them to be. Their fight is for their very survival. They know their country is a bit player and that every one of them is “acceptable collateral damage” to the foreign players using their home as a battleground for a grander (sick) chess match.
– Russia will not accept losing Syria in its sphere of influence for a number of reasons. One of the more important reasons is keeping Syria also keeps Turkey in its sphere of influence. If you look at the whole picture of aggression towards Russian interests anyone should recognize it is pretty alarming to Russians. They simply can’t accept to keep losing and getting pushed into a smaller and smaller box.
Wasting time manipulating International Law is getting thrown out, it was so 20th century. 21st Century is back to Medieval times with Mercenary armies fighting off-books wars for the interests of the elites. This, to me, is the real story. The direction we are going is very dark and evil. Nothing good will come of this.
Russia has the huge advantage/disadvantage of knowing who the Trotskyite (Bolshevik) Jews who have infiltrated the West are. After all the Khazars lived side-by-side with Russians since the fourth century or so.
And the Jews are scared, both because of what they did to Russian Christian Slavs and others and that, through Russia, the world may start to uncover their deadly and filthy secrets.
The conflict is rapidly acquiring a mystical dimension, which, as someone said here yesterday, can no longer be separated from the political and existential dimensions. Won’t atheists and zionists be surprised when events start following the Book of Revelations, verbatim?
You could say that world events have been tracking as mentioned in the Book of Revelations for some time now. Though I don’t know if there was an exact ‘start date’, the signs- famine, earthquakes, and wars have been accelerating across the planet.
With this week’s Harvard announcement that we can only prevent climate change with solar geo-engineering, i.e. blocking out the sun, the prophecy becomes harder to dispute.
k
Watched “Snow Piercer” Korean movie last night. Plot: An effort to stave off “global warming” misfires (over does it) and 99.999% of the biosphere dies in a deep freeze.
Nice allegory. Fear and control. Fear and control. Fear and control.
With the most psychopathic surviving spiritual slaves to these dynamics driven to try their hand at playing God on a crazy train that races around the globe punching through train-high snowdrifts that tend to cover the tracks at the approaches to mountain gorge bridges.
I’d give Harvard’s “science” about as much credibility as their including Saker in the “fake news” category.
Quite so. Just why anyone would want to prevent the climate from changing is quite beyond me.The fact that it is beyond our abilities to have more than a trivial effect on climate , if any , is reassuring.
And why anyone persists with completely discredited interpretations of the Book of Revelations, given recent scholarship, is testament to the human propensity to prefer superstition to rational explanation, as difficult and not wholly accurate as that may be.
Hi FB,
With the risk of going far off topic I will respond to say that between the rational mind that limits itself only to the physical dimension, and superstition, there are a lot of shades of consciousness. Happy to meet you in the cafe for further exchanges. I promise to go no further with this here beloved mods.
mods.
Farmer k
Indeed , a topic for discussion elsewhere. But one which ought not to be avoided, uncomfortable as it may be, given the hostilities that we see based on irrational belief.
Our anonymous commenter has pointed out the elephant in the room careerist air force types have been trying to hide for decades: namely that competent, dedicated missile brigades can inflict crippling losses on aircraft in combat, manned or unmanned.
The other elephant that invites exposure is the one naval careerists try to wish away. TerraHertz and Erebus have pointed the way. It would be great to see a summary by a commenter as technically informed as the one above, on the fact that surface warships have had their functional roles severely restricted by StS missile technology, possibly being unable to function close to any landmass unless there is political impositionof restraint.
The first time a fleet of surface ships engages a modern, competent missile network, the effect is going to unmask decades of hypocrisy, kicking the can down the road by navies with dysfunctional career path incentives. The result of that first engagement will be such a fiasco, even the most ridiculous MSM sycophants won’t be able to ignore it.
The curtain was pulled back a little in 1982 when a single Argentine fighter destroyed HMS Sheffield with a single exocet missile without coming within range of the Sheffield’s armaments. It also demonstrated how thinking you can use carrier-based air cover to keep attacking aircraft out of missile firing range is absurd.
The Sheffield fiasco prompted a furious exchange of telephone calls as outlined here:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110663
Here is the most relevant quote: “British naval commanders swiftly concluded that this French-made weapon was so effective that the entire operation to throw the Argentine occupiers out of the islands was at risk. ”
Then-president Mitterand was prevailed upon to supply disabling codes for the Excocets to the British. This is the only thing that saved the British fleet from a complete rout. read the article to find out what Thatcher was threatening to get those codes.
The veil has been pulled back recently just a little in the ongoing war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Were you aware that the Yemenis have managed to sink 8 Saudi ships since the war began using shore-based missiles and rockets? Some people think they are Iranian-designed mods of the Soviet-era Konkurs anti-tank missile and that the Yemenis are building them locally.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/10/us-navy-ddg-attacked-in-bab-al-mandab-strait-tidewater.html#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb094220cf970d
https://southfront.org/2-other-saudi-warships-were-destroyed-by-yemeni-forces/
Its a special situation, since Saudi ships are making themselves inviting targets by operating in the restricted space of the entrance to the Red Sea. But these Saudis can’t even defend themselves from modded anti-tank missiles!
What is even an advanced force going to do against multiple Moskits?
And then, we have another game-changer (out of many).
“The Kremlin’s Zircon missile has been called “unstoppable”, “unbeatable” and “undefendable” with a 4,600mph speed that only one defence system in the world can destroy – that system is owned by Russia.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-creates-unstoppable-hypersonic-zircon-140101913.html
Take Care
Kent
@Kent,
Yes, the Zircon is ready for deployment in land-based mobile and surface ship versions, and designers claim they will have a submarine-launched version debugged very soon.
But it gets even better (or worse, depending on whether you’re attacking or defending a ship.) India and Russia are cooperating on upgrading the Onyx missile system. The new BrahMos missile upgrade has been successfully tested and deployed in land-based mobile and surface ship networks. It reaches Mach 2.8 (2,100 mph) in its current iteration. Note that the fastest muzzle velocity achieved by small arms is about 1,700 mph. This missile outruns bullets!
The fastest high-energy bullets fired from large turret platform mounted guns on land armor and ships achieve 3,200 mph, but the BrahMos design team claims they are working on a hypersonic version that will achieve Mach 7 (5,300 mph)
Take a look at a recent iteration of the BrahMos launching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUVMsuLW2EE
Watching the on-screen timer, you can see that an attacking force trying to find and take out a mobile battery will have about a 10-second window from the time the flare reveals its position upon launch until the ramjet takes over, and it is basically uncatchable.
Designers are also claiming they will be able to deploy a submarine-launched model “soon.” It will be able to launch from under the surface, which will give attackers even less time to react to a much smaller launch signature.
In theory a fleet-networked Aegis/Phalanx system should be able to shoot down as many as 12 objects incoming at mach 2.8. In theory. What happens when a volley of 20 BrahMos are launched? What happens when the system malfunctions like this:
https://warisboring.com/high-tech-defense-gun-misses-as-navy-accidentally-blasts-own-ship-c9983ceddacf+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Sparrow missiles and Phalanx rounds have to hit first time-every time. The attackers just have to get 1 missile though.
Some Destruct-O-Nomics: High muzzle velocity guns on ships and land armor fire DU or tungsten rounds. It costs tens of thousands of dollars a minute to fire Phalanx guns. A volley of BrahMos guaranteed to achieve a kill of a major capital vessel like an aircraft carrier would probably cost in the 8-figure range. But what is a few tens of millions when you can send a multi-billion dollar ship to the bottom?
========
the warisboring.com link in this comment need to be updated, to reflect a good url without google cache.
thank you for your cooperation,
~mod-eo
Frankly, Russia’s cooperation with India in high tech weaponry puzzles me, when it doesn’t make me downright nervous. India is socially and politically unstable, and geo-politically fickle.
The most recent example of the latter is its sudden abandonment of the Chabahar fertilizer plant project in Iran, apparently at the behest of the Americans. The plant is central to a whole matrix of economic/strategic projects that Modi himself signed off on with Rouhani, but a word from the Americans is enough to scuttle it, apparently.
My guess is that Russia needs India as a counterweight to China. Somebody made an assessment and decided the risks could be managed. Hope it pays off.
@Erebus
re:
Frankly, Russia’s cooperation with India in high tech weaponry puzzles me, when it doesn’t make me downright nervous. India is socially and politically unstable, and geo-politically fickle.
Oh please spare us the hypocrisy: India steadfastly resisted US/EU led sanctions on Iran when both Russia and China showed fickleness by complying with these US/EU sanctions. The Indians persisted with oil trade with Iran to the point where the Indians even resorted to trading their physical gold for oil in order bypass American & EU banking restrictions. This was a vital lifeline that India extended to Iran during the worst of the sanctions. The Chinese were all too willing to throw Iran under the bus in order to protect their trade interests with the US. And let’s not forget how often Iran has been burned by Russian “mind-changing” such as the reneging on the S-300 sale and the stopping of work on Bhusher nuclear power plant (specifically the fuel supply) due to US “pressure” on Russia. As well, China has been double dealing Iran on several fronts including in trying to undermine the Chhabbar project.
You’re really grasping at straws in giving so much importance to a fertilizer plant and drawing a dotted line to the US on this one. So why don’t the Chinese take opportunity and replace the Indians in deploying the fertilizer plant? China clearly has the capability and technical know how. Perhaps because the fertilizer plant has less to do with conspiracies and more to do with business issues?
@DanC
An excellent posting by you regarding the Brahmos missile and in general about how missiles can obviate surface ships.
You are quite correct in your assessment regarding the speed at with this joint development is proceeding: in less than 4 weeks from announcement to implementation, the Indians extended the range of the Brahmos from 300 to 600km resulting in a successful test firing in only 2 months from the day they announced their intention to extend the range (as a result of India entering the MTCR). The missile is extremely fast (Mach 2.8 flying only 30ft/10m off the ground or sea surface) and it’s very accurate as various test firing videos on Youtube can attest to: hitting a very small target (1 sq meter in area) from hundreds of km away; it can fly thru a window).
Regarding the kinetic energy that this system possesses, you have astutely pointed out a very important factor: the Brahmos has so much speed (and therefore momentum –> ergo energy stored) and mass, that it can cripple a ship or severely damage it without even the warhead detonating, simply the impact at such high speeds is destructive enough.
Also note that the Indians are developing and testing a lighter air-launched version (for Su-30/35s) and have a separate surface launched version that fly up a mountainside (hugging the slope contour, flip over the edge and fly down the other side of the peak, hugging the mountainside to hit land targets on the other side of a mountain range). This variant can also be fired from air or the ridge line and it will following the slope down to destroy targets in the valley or plateau below such as airbases or bridges. The main target being Chinese bases in Tibet. Already India has deployed (or is deploying) batteries of 200 Brahmos missiles in Arunachal Pradesh, on the Indo-Sino border, pointed at Chinese military infrastructure in Tibet.
Vietnam has been lobbying India to purchase the Brahmos missile system (Putin already greenlighted this more than 2 years ago so the decision is in India’s hands). However, for some strange reason, India has dithered on approving this sale (no one is sure why).
Malaysia had also lobbied to buy Brahmos from India, but India rejected that right away, similar to vetoing a sale of Su-30MKI (the origin of the VVS Su-30SM variant) from Russia to Malaysia (due to Indian modular designs, avionics, and computational components inherent to these aircraft). The cut down version sold to Malaysia required the substitution of components from France. From India’s perspective Malaysia cannot be trusted due their continued support for Sunni Wahabist causes (terrorist financing conduit) and their close ties to Saudi Arabia.
The next Brahmos version, a hypersonic missile using a scramjet, is in the works (as you’ve pointed out). It will be interesting to see when this version will come out.
US Marines Offer Retention Bonuses in Push to Keep F-35, V22 Pilots Flying
https://sputniknews.com/military/201703311052143929-marines-offer-pilots-retention-bonuses/
As both aircraft are the equivalent of kamikazes in a combat zone, they will need all the air crew they can get.
I just read the abridged version. A fine analysis by an everyday forum member who also makes valuable contributions there. I wish he had a name or a handle to recognize him by.
There are a few Anons in the forums. It takes a while sometimes to tell them apart.
Thanks to the mods and especially Herb for preparing commenters corner.
Well, the MSM is actually doing some real reporting for a change.
The very first article I’m aware of in the MSM talking about the fact that carriers have no defense against the new generation of hypersonic missiles appeared about a month ago in th UK’s Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-navy-new-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-not-stop-russia-zircon-missiles-hypersonic-a7651781.html
Not mentioned there is the fact that the carrier would be defenseless against the Brahmos missile once it gets its upcoming speed upgrades.
They also reveal for the first time I’m aware of in an MSM article, the fact that the US isn’t even close to having a hypersonic missile system debugged and deployable.
In other words, the Russians can hold surface fleets 250 km out to sea, with all that implies strategically. Russian shipborne antimissile defense capabilities are not public at this time AFAIK, but if they are anywhere close to the capabilities of the US & UK systems, the Americans (and the Brits, and the French) have nothing to sink Russian ships with.
Another article consistent with the theme that “air superiority” will not be a useful concept anymore as missile systems get faster, more mobile, able to penetrate “stealth technologies”
https://fightersweep.com/4116/modern-long-range-sams-new-threat-air-superiority/
More info on Russia’s anti-ship missile systems (and how surface shipd don’t have a chance against them:)
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/07/15/nato-surface-ships-sitting-ducks-for-russian-coastal-defense-systems.html
Hope don’t mind my using this comment section as a place to archive ongoing developments in the missile field that are obsoleting conventional forces, in air, land & sea.
Now the Chinese have been spotted testing a new unmanned weapon (Is it a drone? Is it a missile?) that hugs the water surface as low as 50 cm using the Ground Effect. Based on it size, it should be able to carry a payload that could sink the largest of ships.
http://defence-blog.com/news/china-develops-advanced-ultra-low-altitude-anti-ship-unmanned-system.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26382/china-sea-skimming-anti-ship-drone
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705101053474606-china-new-drone/
This thing will be cheap. Cheap enough to launch not just 2-digit volleys (10-99 missiles) but 3-digit (>100) volleys!
The suggestion that one use SM-6 missiles that cost millions of dollars each be used to shoot these things down is ridiculous, but US Navy types have been caught actually suggesting such a thing . . . along with the even more ridiculous idea that E-2 Hawkeyes be used to provide targeting control for said missiles.
Oh, well. Missile battery commanders know what to do. Use satellite info to find the Hawkeyes and take them out first with your high-cost hypersonics, then swarm in your drones.
And now here’s a report pointing out that Chinese missile batteries can wipe out every naval ship docked at military bases in Japan within minutes, far too short a time frame to mobilize large ships and get them out of port. They could also destroy the runways of airbases within minutes, too short a timeframe to scramble any aircraft that aren’t already ready for takeoff.
https://warisboring.com/china-can-blast-almost-every-u-s-warship-docked-in-japan-with-ballistic-missiles/
The Chinese have thousands of these things, and enough mobile units that great surprise could be achieved.
Would the Chinese do it?
Only in the most extreme of circumstances, one presumes.
Are the Americans and their hosts overconfident in the ability of their missile defense systems to shoot down incoming ballistics.
Yes.
Hmmm, a really significant development on the part of China, And of course, nobody in the western MSM reported on it.
China is cutting its army manpower in half, and redirecting expenditures to improving and increasing naval and missile forces.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1055927.shtml
This is reflecting a recognition that the strategic picture for China has changed.
The massive army China has maintained since 1949 reflected the cold war situation where deterring land attacks from neighboring countries, especially the Soviet Union and India, was the priority (meanwhile conducting the occasional occupation and cross-border incursion.)
China is now allied with Russia, and even with a 1 million man army will still be able to handle such disputes with bordering countries as arise. Land-based warfare is not the imminent possibility that it was in the 20th century.
China’s geostrategic priority has a new focus: obsoleting the sea and air forces that have maintained western empires since the time of the Ming Dynasty.
And missiles are doing just that.
And updating the news about the BrahMos hypersonic missle, India has successfully adapted them for launch from aircraft (and of course, that means Russia has this capability
https://sputniknews.com/military/201711221059323479-india-tests-air-version-brahmos/
This missile hit a target 280 km away.
This means that even in sub-optimal conditions, a volley of these missiles can be delivered as far away as 1,200 km in less than an hour by a fighter group.