my KoS: Modern Iranian SAM Missiles, can they hit a stealth bomber?

[FogerRox]

My first diary in this series dealt with the roots of the Saudi short range ICBM program & recent Saudi "Ghauri" missile purchases from Pakistan. The next diary in the series dealt with Iranian missiles starting with surface to air systems like the short range Russian SAM 6, whose mobile launchers can be upgraded with SAM 11 missiles. The more modern Tor-M1 and the medium range Pechora-2A. Offensively I included the mach 3 Sunburn, C-801 and C-802 cruise missiles.

In part 3 of the series I offer you the Irans S-300PMU-2. Twice the size, of the US Partiot missile & reportedly vastly superior (lacking the reputation of shooting down friendly aircarft), the S-300PMU-2 has been a good source of currency for Russia, who was the worlds leader in exported arms sales last year (31 billion).

Can Iran shoot down a stealth?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/19480/1402

[bigdarryl]

1. HELL!!!!!! no the stealth is to advanced

[FogerRox]

3. After reading the diary, then tell what you think. Thanks.

F-117 has already been shot down.

NYT has reported on the water absorbtion problems that render the B-2 shiney as snot to radar.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. I did read the diary entries...

To do what is discussed requries a fully integrated IADS with experienced operators, something it is doubtful Iran is capabale of without real time Russian support. The spec sheet numbers are idealistic for an unproven SAM systems. The real world has Decoys, ECM, ASPJs, standoff jamming, ARMs, and other SEAD. Despite that, its much more capability than what Iran has had in the past, and will have to be accounted for if things go hot.

The earlier entry about the Sunburns needs to be revised as well. Old technology that the USN can handle.

[FogerRox]

8. The Sunburn should be handled by CAP at some range

Otherwise a stripped down F-16 isnt fast enough to chase it. Sparrows and Harpoons certainly arent fast enough to give chase, so they have to work the first time or its up to the Arlghie Burke point defense.

ANd then they might be X-555 cruise missles.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. Several thoughts...

1) The Sunburn seeker is old tech...it can be decoyed or otherwise deceived readily
2) The Sunburn needs to have a pretty good idea of where its target is, bearing and range. Its not the easy to determine accurately and then get transmit to the launch site while under attack.
3) If things get hot, launch sites for anything bigger than a bottle rocket will be hit first (that includes airfields). SCUDCAP equivalent would be maintained as well.

Iran has a problem. It can protect its nuclear sites or it can protect its weapons. It can not effectively do both given the number of sites and the amount of SAMs systems sold to them. A way around that would be a first strike...

[FogerRox]

15. Thanks.

[Pierre.Suave]

19. A few things...

An F-15 is fast enough...

The navy uses neither F-15's or 16's...

harpoons are Air launched or ship launched ANTI SHIP MISSILES, they are not anti missile missiles.

the Version of the sparrow used by ships against incoming things is called the Sea Sparrow.

[FogerRox]

22. 2 things, my journal, & US Air base @ Bahrain/Qatar.

3rd thing

If a Sunburn gets to altitude, its mach 3. IF WE HAVE TO CHASE IT... we have no plane that can catch it. SO any interception has to work the 1st time. The interceptor cannot turn around and catch a Sunburn, and there really wont be much time for that anyway.

[Pierre.Suave]

24. I read your journal

I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about.

As stated in the replies to your journal, perhaps by you, Plane going 2.5 mach launches a missile that can go 2+ = 4.5+ mach missile, possibly head on to intercept it...

If you think the russians did it to intercept an SR-71, why cant we do it as well? Of course, to deny this you would have to deny your own earlier assertion that the Russians successfully did it to shoot down an SR-71...

Why should I care about Qatar?

I don't think you have ANY idea what you are talking about.

You posted this today in the comments on your blog:

<snip>
If a single salvo of different cruise missiles (500,600), gets thru Combat air patrol, past the Sparrows & Harpoons & saturates point defense to sink ships.

<>


HARPOONS ARE NOT LAUNCHED AT INCOMING MISSILES!!! They are an ANTI-SHIP MISSILE.

At least do some research, the naval version of the Sparrow used for defense is called SEA SPARROW.

[FogerRox]

27. You are correct - I failed

to note the prooper name of the Sea Sparrow, except in my journal, sloppy on my part. ANd I did infer that the Sparrows & Harpoons were something else other than anti shipping. Thanks for the correction.

"Why should I care about Qatar?"

Oh, I thought an US Air Force base there suggested the use of Air Force jets against Iran. Along with carrier jets. What do I know.

/snark

" to deny this you would have to deny your own earlier assertion that the Russians successfully did it to shoot down an SR-71... "

I edited my KOS diary a long time ago to correct that, but you are entitled to ride that horse for as long as you like.

""If you think the russians did it to intercept an SR-71, why cant we do it as well? "

Very astute observation.
1)A Mig-25 (mach3) can nearly pace an SR~71 (mach 3+). While an F-15 or F-16 @ mach 2.5 cannot quite do the same with a mach 3 Sunburn. Though finding a Sunburn @ or near launch, I would think is a kill for the US pilot.

2) Russian air traffic controllers would have way more advance time to see the SR~71 coming. US jets might have a few minutes to perform the same task.

3) Russian Migs had the advantage of travelling the same direction as the SR-71, & knowing in general terms the flight path of the SR~71, & being out in front. Its likely that US jets will not be in the same position.

So tactically we are talking about different scenarios.

On the other hand what you are saying is a good idea. Certainly no one wants to leave a missile unfired if the shits hitting the fan, if it were me looking at a long shot, I would pull the trigger.

[MGD]

17. The F-117 is basically retired. It's still advanced but there are better things on the horizon

[agincourt]

2. No but a Mig or Sukhoi certainly can,

if they get a visual. And as expensive as B2s are they can't afford to lose any.

[FogerRox]

4. What would you say about a 1950's era SAM 6 shooting Down a F-117

Serbia 1999. Whay happens when an F-117 or a turns, it flashes it big flat belly at any radar in the area. And when the bomb bay doors are open both planes are readily locked up by radar SAM systems.

Read the damn diary.......

[madrchsod]

5. no

i doubt the russians would give iran any system that could target a stealth fighter. it`s the targeting system and the command structure that is critical in destroying enemy aircraft.

[FogerRox]

7. Read the DAMN diary, a mid 1950's SAM 3 shot down an F-117

in Serbia in 1999.

A Fucking SAM 3.

A Korean War era SAM sysytem.

WTF are you talking about. Gheese.....

[madrchsod]

10. they tracked it....

"Serbian air defenses managed to string together a series of brief sightings, perhaps starting as early as the F-117's takeoff in Italy, to project the F-117's course and loft an anti-aircraft missile at the F-117 when it was most vulnerable...."

i`m sure the aircraft has measures that would immediately track the trackers. i still stand by my opinion the russians would not sell the system that would defeat the defenses on the stealth fighters.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. It was indeed an IADS of sorts aimed at one platform...it worked once.

[FogerRox]

14. long wave radar on carbon ball stealth paint, easy to see.

alert5.com
James O'Halloran, editor of Jane's Land-Based Air Defense, said the Serbs could succeed because the stealth fighter was not design to be invisible to old long pulse duration radars.

@ airpower
Experts at Lockheed Martin Corporation, the aircraft’s manufacturer, reported that- unlike earlier instances of F-117 combat operations- the missions flown over Yugoslavia required the aircraft to operate in ways that may have compromised its stealthy characteristics. By way of example, they noted that even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more. Such turns were unavoidable in the constricted airspace within which the F-117s had to fly.....Gen Richard Hawley, commander of Air Combat Command at the time, commented that "when you have a lot of unlocated threats, you are at risk even in a stealth airplane." ....Three low-frequency Serb radars that could have detected the F-117’s presence, at least theoretically...

[FogerRox]

16. That trick is as old as the Korean war.

The Long wave radar locked, the missile hit. If the Radar had not locked, it would have not hit.

Janes says the long wave radar see the Stealth paint.

Of course if the SAM launcher left its radar on for 20 minutes the F-117 would have seen it. But this is the game that Pilots & SAM launchers have played for 50 yrs, and consistantly leads to planes being shot down. Its called being a smart operator.

[depakid]

9. An old prop plane like the P-51 could shoot down a B2

Provided that it was in the right place at the right time.

Therein lies the trick.

[kentuck]

13. I tis my understanding that they have the Exocet guided missiles...

I think they are made by France? They can skip along just below the surface of the water and lock onto something as huge as a battleship and do very serious damage. These are potent weapons against the ships in the Persian Gulf... Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

[Solo_in_MD]

18. They are not torpedoes...

"They can skip along just below the surface of the water "

Exocets are an antiship sea skimming (above the water, not below it) weapon. Its relaibility is so-so. Some of them have hit targets and failed to explode. Not clear if that is a design or employment issue. Seeker has not been significantly updated and there are well known countermeasures in addition to point defenses.

Damage is dependent heavily on location. Exocet does not select a vunerable part of a ship. Note the the Stark (a frigate) was hit by two Exocets (one exploded, the other did not), and survived.

Decent summary at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

[FogerRox]

23. I figured that was a typo, Iran has stuff that is much better than

The Exocet.

[Pierre.Suave]

20. Youre kidding right?

The MiG 29 was not even in service at the same time the SR-71 was OVERFLYING the Soviet Union.

NO SR-71s were shot down, the RUSSIANS would have made sure the world knew about it.

You don't mention the HARM being used in SEAD. If you don't know what those are, you are not qualified to comment on the ability of the US to counter even an integrated air defense system.

And lastly, I think you are seriously uninformed and should not be commenting on these matters with such authority, this is clearly only your opinion.

[FogerRox]

21. Correct , I was thinking Foxbat

"You don't mention the HARM being used in SEAD."

Correct again. The KOS diary was on what the Iranians have been buying.

But to be technical, in the full KOS diary you might have picked up on the crude description of a SEAD scenario.

"If the Pilot gets a fix on the radar, he will likely kill it. If the Radar turns on & off real quick, maybe the pilot doesn't get a fix."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/19480/1402#c29

[Pierre.Suave]

25. I read your journal

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Without guidance the missile can not guide, If the radar gets turned on, and stays on, it gets killed. Which is it? A lot of dumb unguided missiles or a bunch of dead radars?

edit: How the HELL do you confuse a MiG-25 Foxbat with a MiG-29 and speak with ANY authority on the subject?

edit2:

MiG-25



MiG-29

[HuffleClaw]

26. of course

'stealth' has been a paper tiger for some time now.