Israel approves F-35 fighters deal
- Thread starter Lankan Ranger
- Start date
Basically, you seem to be saying that SIGINT is even simpler than I argued. Basically, they go out, record whatever heads their way, and then play it back at prototype aircraft? Am I tracking?
If so, it is pretty short-sighted to assume that the systems have only the capability the air-defense operators are nice enough to blast at recce aircraft. I have no doubt that it is possible to reproduce just about any signal the aircraft receives, but if that is all that is being done, it is a bit underwhelming. A more conservative estimate would be: "We know that S-whatever can produces XYZ signals. So, given what we can do, and what older systems can produce, S-whatever can also produce PQRS signals...."
Yes, I was blessed with first hand experience.
So, you have been inside a (Modern) patriot missile battery command trailer, or seen the schematics for the AIM-120 seeking radar? You have seen active tests of both systems, or maybe SM3? If so, I would be most impressed, because you would have very limited company. I for one would not be in a position to argue with you, but since this is the internet...
We can't compare combat records, since the S-300 is yet untested on the field of battle.
Last edited:
Yes, i have been in contact with both systems, and I have first hand experience in how to deal with the aim-120. we had training on it.
if you doubt how, check my flag and put 2 and 2 together.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
That does not mean the endeavor is simple.
Basically...Yes.
Not being short sighted at all. We know that the Soviets does not always comply with our wishes whenever we probe their air defense radars. However, there are certain laws of physics that they must obey if they want to verify whatever they developed works as advertised. For example...Back in the Cold War days, among the SIGINT highest prizes were SA-5 and SA-10 fire control, not search, radar signals. Volume search signals are easy to produce, replicate, and of the 'dime-a-dozen' variety. Their broad beams give them away as to what they are. Track and targeting (fire control) signals were not turned on for long. They know our recording capability and well rehearsed tactics using multiple probes, such as the SR-71 working in a coordinated mission with an E/RC-135.
The SR-71 would be the active provocateur. Its flight would be close to the borders, but (officially) never violated said borders. Its Mach speed and altitude gave it away as to what the radar operators are seeing. Missile crews would not, or rather could not, pass this opportunity to refine their skills against this famous American spy plane. All the while an EC-135 at airliner altitude would be recording everything transmitted.
RAF Mildenhall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SR-71 Sensors Page #3
Eastern Europe was a necessary deployment for the SA series. It was out of Mildenhall that we finally in 1978 recorded enough of the SA-5's track and targeting radars to develop an ECM against it and the success was from such a coordinated mission. What happened was that prior to EIP, we could only do the 'shotgun' approach and record as much of the known spectrum as we can. Post EIP enabled the SR-71 to focus on the SA's volume search freq, wait for the associated track freq, then seek out the inevitable targeting freq. The upgrade enabled the SR-71 to ignore the rest of the spectrum. Then the information was analyzed and correlated against what the larger -135 recorded. The result was that we had the SA-5's entire radar operation, from acquisition (volume search), to individual target track, and finally to fire control.
I don't know of other systems, I had no experience on them, what I do now is that the S-300 i was "in contact" with had higher performance than the patriot system I was "in contact" with.
Their radar performance was radically different to begin with, the S-300 would detect and track targets further out, and would not lose the target under ECM or momentarily during hard turning. Also they showed much better performance when presented with small targets such as missiles and drones than the Patriot.
I have seen a target plane been hit by an S300 missile and then a second one a second later hit the chunk of the target plane still intact and then a third one hit what ever debris was still in trajectory..
We have fired missiles in salvoes many times at a target and if the first missile hits, the second one almost never finds target, or indeed keeps lock on it.. the debris is just too erratic for the missile to do that, we thought initially it was a lucky hit, because the chunk was big enough for some reason and lock was maintained, but the third missile literally blew us out of the water, it just literally hit a bunch of flaming debris in mid air and in the range systems it was shown to have tracked and adjusted to hit it...
We have reports and first witness accounts on the performance of the patriot systems, as well as first hand experience on the reaction time of them... when we tested them, they were not .that successful.. we were not impressed,
I don't know of other systems, I had no experience on them, what I do now is that the S-300 i was "in contact" with had higher performance than the patriot system I was "in contact" with.
Their radar performance was radically different to begin with, the S-300 would detect and track targets further out, and would not lose the target under ECM or momentarily during hard turning. Also they showed much better performance when presented with small targets such as missiles and drones than the Patriot.
I have seen a target plane been hit by an S300 missile and then a second one a second later hit the chunk of the target plane still intact and then a third one hit what ever debris was still in trajectory..
We have fired missiles in salvoes many times at a target and if the first missile hits, the second one almost never finds target, or indeed keeps lock on it.. the debris is just too erratic for the missile to do that, we thought initially it was a lucky hit, because the chunk was big enough for some reason and lock was maintained, but the third missile literally blew us out of the water, it just literally hit a bunch of flaming debris in mid air and in the range systems it was shown to have tracked and adjusted to hit it...
We have reports and first witness accounts on the performance of the patriot systems, as well as first hand experience on the reaction time of them... when we tested them, they were not .that successful.. we were not impressed,
Nifty, which patriot system? PAC-2 or PAC-3? IE, MIM-104C/D or F version?
PAC-2 , I was phasing out when the PAC-3 came online and I just made it to the test firing of the PAC-3.
the S300 is the S300PMU1 (they are currently being upgraded, to what level, I am not sure)
Granted, I would rather be in a CC of a PAC-2 system, more user friendly and more.. well designed, but I'd rather have the S300 firing at the end of my line...
we were blessed with being the only side in the world, to have both systems in rather evolved form operating under a common operational and tactical umbrella, by the same people with the same approach and over the same space, against the same targets.
Not only that, but the threats the opposite side could pose on these systems, we had the equipment (both sides operate F16s and Air to Ground -F4s) to present as well for training and practice.
Last edited:
Yes, there were significant problems in the software of the PAC-2 regarding "Diffuse" targets. These came to light after the first Gulf War and the associated failures to intercept SCUDs. I hear that the PAC-3 revamp was mostly aimed at making it a credible tactical level defense against SRBM's.
I will say that you are comparing two defense systems designed about a decade apart. The S-300PMU1 was created after the lessons learned in the first Gulf war. (PAC-2 Deployed:1988, S-300PMU-1 Deployed: 1999, First Shown: 1992)
Also, my original comment was meant to be about PAC-3.
I will say that you are comparing two defense systems designed about a decade apart. The S-300PMU1 was created after the lessons learned in the first Gulf war. (PAC-2 Deployed:1988, S-300PMU-1 Deployed: 1999, First Shown: 1992)
Also, my original comment was meant to be about PAC-3.
Similar threads
