Much hyperbole surrounds Russia’s S-400 advanced
surface-to-air missile system, which is now being exported abroad and was recently deployed to Syria. Unsurprisingly, Russia has leveraged this deployment to further
build-up the public’s perception of the S-400. Still, the S-400 is highly capable, and beating it, or any
advanced air defense system, is far from simple.
The
video was filmed at the Kapustin
Yar test range in the
Astakhan region of Russia, during a test of the S-400 against ballistic missile
targets. The test supposedly took place
while the S-400 was under heavy electronic jamming conditions.
Despite this, Russia claims all four of the missiles hit their targets during
their mid-course stage of flight.
It is unclear exactly what components of the S-400 system were present for the test aside
from the 92N6E “Gravestone” fire control radar, command and control vehicles,
transporter-erector-launchers and the missiles. The S-400 can use multiple
types of missiles, and can integrate with various sensor systems including
older radars designed for later versions of the S-300 system. This trial
appeared to test the system in a mobile expeditionary fashion, not where the
S-400 unit is one of many surface-to-air missile systems and sensors that are
tied together into a integrated air defense system (IADS).
Advanced IADS are
increasingly using some level of sensor fusion to meld many different sensor’s
data together into a single common “picture” that is capable of providing
engagement-quality tracks of enemy targets.
This makes tactics like
stealth and jamming less effective than when taking on a single surface-to-air
missile system located in just one geographical place at one time (see this image and this image.)
Making things even more
complicated is that most IADS have many different sensor and missile systems’
capabilities (not to mention fighter and surveillance aircraft) overlapping in
a layered fashion, and some of these could be road-mobile. These systems can
pop-up at different locations at different points in times, making them very
unpredictable.
This means that what was a
once “most survivable route” through an enemy’s IADS, charted based on previous
intelligence and often referred to as a “blue line,” could change without
notice. If a previously unknown or road mobile air defense system were to pop
up in the aircraft’s path it could make the crew adapt its route in real-time,
something that could cause a domino effect that greatly reduces their ability
to survive over enemy airspace.
Remember, even the
stealthiest aircraft is not invisible to radar; it simply has reduced detection
range and this may vary greatly depending on what angle the stealth aircraft is
at in relation to the sensor radiating it and what wavelength/band/frequency
that radar sensor is operating on. Ground-basedinfrared
search and track systems are
an entirely different story, but these too can be tied into an IADS.
America’s
unique electronic warfare and radar suppression abilities includes the Growler,
but also many other platforms and ancillary capabilities as well. This complex
ecosystem of weaponry and sensors includes various surveillance aircraft,
hacking and cyber warfare abilities, active suppression of enemy air defenses
tactics and weaponry, along with low-observable aircraft and long-range
“standoff” munitions. The last two are especially potent when combined together
and electronic warfare support is added.
Firing long-range low
observable (stealthy) weaponry from even a non-stealthy aircraft gives enough
stand-off distance to begin taking out an enemy’s known air defenses at a safe
distance today, the S-400 included in most cases. When a stealthy launch
platform is used instead, you can use more plentiful weapons with less range as
that stealth aircraft can get closer to the air defenses being targeted than
their non-stealthy brethren can.
For instance, an F-16 may
be able to get well within JASSM
missile range of an
advanced SAM site while an F-35 could get within the outer-edge of Small
Diameter Bomb range. When you add jamming support, these ranges decrease by a
noticeable margin, depending on what tactics are used and what the capacity
available is to employ those tactics. The problem is that against an advanced
foe, you’re not going up against a single SAM site or radar, but a full
constellation of systems that includes aerial assets, just like the advanced
integrated air defense system we discussed before.
That is why “brochure
comparisons” of systems is nearly useless for such complex military topics. In
real life, the Growler does not take on the S-400 alone, and vice-versa.
An advanced IADS including
the S-400 in it will likely feature increased detection ranges against stealthy
and non-stealthy aircraft alike. It will also make jamming more problematic,
and could mean blinding even a portion of that network is much tougher due to
multiple layers of redundant air defenses tied together. This is where cyber
warfare and pinpoint strikes based on multiple sources of intelligence can be
more effective than jamming or going after the surface-to-air missiles and
sensors themselves. For instance, taking out the IADS’ “brains,” locations
where the sensor fusion occurs, or striking the system’s communications
channels.
No comments:
Post a Comment