SEAD without anti radiation missiles [ 1970 to 1991]

Monk78

During the cold war it seems like few countries had antiradiation missiles , AFAIK Israel had shrike and standard, UK had shrike and HARM. USA and USSR ofcourse and France. WHile many countries had relatively modern SAMs
How did the countries without anti radiation missiles supposed to conduct SEAD missions? SOme of these countries had significant airforces like turkey, egypt, KSA, Iran, Japan, India , Pakistan, Morocco, south africa etc so how can they effectively counter modern SAM systems
or am I missing something and ARM were more widespread during that period ?
 
Last edited:

Carl Schwamberger

Locating the missile launch sites with photography or direct observation, & attacking them directly with bombs, missiles, or cannon & MG. That does not do much for missiles in the air, but reduces future launches. When I wrote cannon I also meant field artillery. Back when I was paid to do cannons we would rehearse SEAD with the artillery. When a close support airstrike was planned the artillery S2 would break out the location of known or suspect enemy air defense that had turned up in past few hours. The Fire Direction Center would work up fire missions on those locations. a few minutes before the airstrike time we'd shift the battalion fires to the enemy AA weapons in range in the hope they'ed duck & lose control of their AA fires. A lot of the targets we were trying to suppress were battle zone items. The ZSU types & the lighter AA missiles.

All this was the same basic boilerplate procedure we'd use if suppressing enemy mortar and MG fires for a infantry attack, or suppressing AT fires to cover a armor/mechanized attack. During the air bombardment period of Desert Storm the navy had SEAD targets to suppress with its cannon & surface to surface missiles. Hypothetically you could have ground units or air assault units attack air defense sites are part of a SEAD program. I don't ever remember that in training, or a description of it in combat, but with planning it could be useful.

Earliest SEAD I recall reading was in WWII. In the spring of 1945 a group of US medium bombers were headed towards a bridge target. The lower/lead sections of the formation took unusually heavy losses from some German FLAK along the way. When the group bombed the bridge the commander of the lead lead was a bit angry and had the survivors salvo their load on a cluster of FLAK guns along the approach. Which took some pressure off the following sections. There are likely earlier examples.
 

tomo pauk

Cluster bombs were used in GW1 against radars that were known for, but were not emmiting in hope that they will not be target of anti-radiation missiles. Otherwise - a ground-based radar is just yet another surface target, fair game for Maverick, TV-guided bombs, unguided rockets, cannon etc, cruise missiles etc.
 

Riain

The British and French had the MARTel, an ARM with a primarily anti-ship role but the French used them as a SEAD weapon in the 80s and the British developed the ALARM in the 80s and fired some 130 during PGW in 1991.

The fact of the matter is that few countries faced a SEAD battle during the Cold War so didn't really invest heavily in SEAD weapons, preferring to avoid area defence systems with low level flying and evasive routing while relying on active countermeasures for point defence weapons. However the Shrike was a pretty handy missile, capable of being used by almost any tactical aircraft in service with NATO level air forces so when a country 'feels the need, the need for SEAD' it can get hold of some Shrikes and fit them to their tactical aircraft within weeks. This is what the British did in the Falklands, fitting Shrikes to Vulcans and Harrier GR1s within 8 weeks for the requirement being identified.
 

Monk78

tomo pauk said:
Cluster bombs were used in GW1 against radars that were known for, but were not emmiting in hope that they will not be target of anti-radiation missiles. Otherwise - a ground-based radar is just yet another surface target, fair game for Maverick, TV-guided bombs, unguided rockets, cannon etc, cruise missiles etc.
Click to expand...
Right but the stand off capability of these weapons is much limited so increases vulnerability of the launching aircraft?
 

jsb

Monk78 said:
How did the countries without anti radiation missiles supposed to conduct SEAD missions? SOme of these countries had significant airforces like turkey, egypt, KSA, Iran, Japan, India , Pakistan, Morocco, south africa etc so how can they effectively counter modern SAM systems
or am I missing something
Click to expand...
How many of the above (or anybody else not NATO/WP) would actually think they would fight a campaign against top tier SAMs by themselves and need to do SEAD?

Are they not likely to be fighting with help (Turkey etc) or at home (Japan) or in very remote settings that allow them to bypass SAMs in likely locations (South Africa)? (or not planing to fight top tier SAMs KSA/Morocco) Indian & Pakistan are probably a mix of all three but probably simply can't afford to fight SEAD on a large scale anyway?
 
Last edited:

Monk78

jsb said:
How many of the above (or anybody else not NATO/WP) would actually think they would fight a campaign against top tier SAMs by themselves and need to do SEAD?

Are they not likely to be fighting with help (Turkey etc) or at home (Japan) or in very remote settings that allow them to bypass SAMs in likely locations (South Africa)? (or not planing to fight top tier SAMs KSA/Morocco) Indian & Pakistan are probably a mix of all three but probably simply can't afford to fight SEAD on a large scale anyway?
Click to expand...
Right
I guess it’s expensive for a second rate power to maintain elaborate air defenses too

you think turkey will not be suppressing Soviet airfences in case of ww3 like scenario?
 

jsb

Monk78 said:
you think turkey will not be suppressing Soviet airfences in case of ww3 like scenario?
Click to expand...
Without US/NATO support no they would just be surviving and staying on the defensive trying not to look like a good nuclear target?
 

tomo pauk

Monk78 said:
Right but the stand off capability of these weapons is much limited so increases vulnerability of the launching aircraft?
Click to expand...

Some of these weapons have had a better stand-off capability, some were up-close and personal. People were making anti-radiaton missiles for a reason.
 

Riain

Monk78 said:
Right
I guess it’s expensive for a second rate power to maintain elaborate air defenses too

you think turkey will not be suppressing Soviet airfences in case of ww3 like scenario?
Click to expand...

A battery/regiment of SAMs is a hell of a lot cheaper than a fighter squadron.
 

Riain

Monk78 said:
but how many regiments of SAM equal one squadorn of fighters in air defence potential ?
Click to expand...

That's a tough question and the answer is 'it depends'.

I'm not going to tell you that SAMs are better, Australia deliberately eschewed SAMs because they lack flexibility. However for a first world country with high education standards the talent pool for finding fighter pilots is quite deep, but for many countries finding recruits with the native talent to be a fighter pilot is difficult and the cost of training these recruits weighs heavily on the country. However the same country finds it much easier to find and train battery commanders, so can build an effective IADS around SAMs while trying to reach the same level of effectiveness with fighters is beyond them.

This is why you find a lot of developing countries during the Cold War with very SAM-heavy air defence systems while developed nations utilise the flexibility of aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Monk78

Riain said:
That's a tough question and the answer is 'it depends'.

I'm not going to tell you that SAMs are better, Australia deliberately eschewed SAMs because they lack flexibility. However for a first world country with high education standards the talent pool for finding fighter pilots is quite deep, but for many countries finding recruits with the native talent to be a fighter pilot is difficult and the cost of training these recruits weighs heavily on the country. However the same country finds it much easier to find and train battery commanders, so can build an effective IADS around SAMs while trying to reach the same level of effectiveness with fighters is beyond them.

This is why you find a lot of developing countries during the Cold War with very SAM-heavy air defence systems while developed nations utilise the flexibility of aircraft.
Click to expand...
Also probably why ussr relied so much on SAMs too
 

Riain

Monk78 said:
Also probably why ussr relied so much on SAMs too
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that during the Cold War Soviet fighter pilots flew something like 70 hours a year,* which in a 45 minute training flight is about twice a week. IIRC a NATO 'A' rating required 250 hours a year and a 'C' rating 180 hours a year, which in an hour training flight is every day for A rating and 3 or 4 times a week for a C rating.

The Soviet Union was a poor country compared to most of NATO and had to do things on the cheap where they could.

* I think maybe the Soviets' rules around flight hours were a bit more strict than NATO, something like a NATO pilot's flight hours begin when strapped in with the engine running whereas the Soviets are only when the plane starts/stops taxiing. However that's not going to cover the gap between flying twice a week and flying 3, 4 or 5 times a week.
 

Monk78

Riain said:
Yes, I think that during the Cold War Soviet fighter pilots flew something like 70 hours a year,* which in a 45 minute training flight is about twice a week. IIRC a NATO 'A' rating required 250 hours a year and a 'C' rating 180 hours a year, which in an hour training flight is every day for A rating and 3 or 4 times a week for a C rating.

The Soviet Union was a poor country compared to most of NATO and had to do things on the cheap where they could.

* I think maybe the Soviets' rules around flight hours were a bit more strict than NATO, something like a NATO pilot's flight hours begin when strapped in with the engine running whereas the Soviets are only when the plane starts/stops taxiing. However that's not going to cover the gap between flying twice a week and flying 3, 4 or 5 times a week.
Click to expand...
That’s why it’s pointless to talk about Soviet vs NATO fighter pilot capabilities

best Soviet fighter pilots can do is protect their airbases from being pounded by NATO and protect major military installations

the frontline of Soviet army ( iS it called FEBA ? I’m not sure ) is on its own under a SAM umbrella maybe
Soviet front commander would be really stupid to risk his fighters to counter NATO at the front lines better to hold them back to protect the bigger objectives away from frontlines
Plus the crowded airspace only increases risk of blue on blue and given the crappy ECM on most Soviet fighters the Soviet SAMs would likely be the first Aces on the battlefield
 

Riain

The FEBA and SAM belts along the inner German border would be where the SEAD battle would take place in ww3, to open up lanes for interdiction aircraft and enable CAS of friendly troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top