Soviet frontal air defence solely based on SAM

[marathag]

IMHO,

I suspect if the Soviets had attempted this in the 1950's and 1960's the experiences of the Vietnamese in countering the line backer raids in 1972 and the Arab experiences in the Yom Kippur war and the subsequent conflict over Lebanon in 1983 would lead to a change in doctrine.

Edit to add:
I suspect the U.S. use of PGM's over North Vietnam and their ability to fly high altitude B52 missions over areas defended by SAM's would have been a significant wake up call. (Ie visions of USAF aircraft being able to potentially roam the rear areas of a Soviet Army while flying high enough to avoid most guns and many SAMS, while employing PGM's against high value targets would likely be an unpleasant thought for the Red Army.)

Most B-52s OTL were gotten by SA-2, that were getting long in the Tooth by 1972. Had the Soviet given state of the art(for the USSR, anyway) SARH SA-5 Gammon to the North, the USAF and USN losses would have been even higher after 1968.

But the USSR being what it was, it didn't even export these to the Warsaw Pact nations till quite late, let alone a 3rd rate Client state like North Vietnam

 

[Blue cat]

Most B-52s OTL were gotten by SA-2, that were getting long in the Tooth by 1972. Had the Soviet given state of the art(for the USSR, anyway) SARH SA-5 Gammon to the North, the USAF and USN losses would have been even higher after 1968.

But the USSR being what it was, it didn't even export these to the Warsaw Pact nations till quite late, let alone a 3rd rate Client state like North Vietnam

Perhaps, although the lower number of SAM systems that could effectively reach high altitudes and the ability of the U.S. to rapidly counter new radars and guidance schemes would likely have been a concern once aircraft could carry out precision attacks from high level.

The use of tactics such as using fighter bombers to lay chaff corridors to screen larger air craft would also seem hard for the Soviets to counter without their own fighters. If NATO doesn't need to provide fighter escorts for strike missions and can use the aircraft that would have been flying fighter escort missions to lay chaff corridors, fire anti radiation missiles and perhaps engage in stand off jamming the situation will be even harder for the Soviets to deal with.

 

[Richard V]

While no replacement for fighter aircraft, SAM defenses could be improved by data-linking them. Only a few radars need to be turned on at a time for short periods to produce a complete picture.

 

[Crowbar Six]

From LINK

At 8 p.m. on March 27, 1999, a bizarre-looking black painted airplane cut through the night sky over Serbia. This particular F-117 Nighthawk—a subsonic attack plane that was the world’s first operational stealth aircraft—flew by the call sign of Vega-31 and was named “Something Wicked.” Moments earlier, it had released its two Paveway laser-guided bombs on targets near the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade. Its pilot, Lt. Col. Dale Zelko, was a veteran with experience in the 1991 Gulf War.

A dozen Nighthawks had deployed to Aviano, Italy on February 21 to participate in Operation Allied Force—a NATO bombing campaign intended to pressure Belgrade into withdrawing its troops from the province of Kosovo after President Slobodan Milosevic initiated a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign seeking to expel the Kosovar Albanian population.


The Yugoslav National Army (JNA) possessed a mix S-75 and S-125 surface-to-air missile systems dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, as well as more recent 2K12 Kub mobile SAMs and MiG-29 Fulcrum twin-engine fighters. Together these posed a moderate threat to NATO warplanes, forcing them to fly at higher altitudes and be escorted by radar-jamming planes like the EA-6B Prowler.


However, that evening the Prowlers were grounded by bad weather. Something Wicked and her three flight mates were dispatched anyway because their faceted surfaces drastically reduced the range at which they could be detected by radar and shot at.


Suddenly, Zelko spotted two bright dots blasting upwards through the clouds below, closing on him at three-and-a-half times the speed of sound. These were radar-guided V-601M missiles, fired from the quadruple launch rails of an S-125M Neva surface-to-air missile system. Boosted by a two-stage solid-fuel rocket motors, one of the six-meter long missiles zipped so close that it shook Vega 31 planes with its passage. The other detonated its 154-pound proximity-fused warhead, catching Zelko’s jet in the blast that sprayed 4,500 metal fragments in the air.


Something Wicked lost control and plunged towards the ground inverted. The resulting g-force was so powerful Zelko only barely managed to grasp the ejection ring and escape the doomed Nighthawk.


How had a dated Serbian missile system shot down a sophisticated (though no longer state-of-the-art) stealth fighter?


Zelko’s adversary that evening was Serbian Col. Zoltán Dani, commander of the 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade. Dani was by all accounts a highly motivated commander who studied earlier Western air-defense suppression tactics. He redeployed his Neva batteries frequently, in contrast to the static posture adopted by ill-fated Iraqi and Syrian missile defenses in the Middle East. He permitted his crews to activating their active targeting radars for no longer than twenty seconds, after which they were required to redeploy, even if they had not opened fire.


The S-125M wasn’t normally considered a ‘mobile’ SAM system, but Zoltan had his unit drilled to redeploy the weapons in just 90 minutes (the standard time required is 150 minutes), a procedure facilitated by halving the number of launchers in his battery. While his batteries shuttled from one site to another, Dani also setup dummy SAM sites and decoy targeting radars taken from old MiG fighters to divert NATO anti-radiation missiles.



Thanks to the decoys and constant movement, Zoltan’s unit didn’t lose a single SAM battery despite the twenty-three HARM missiles shot at him by NATO war planes.


Dani had noticed that his battery’s P-18 “Spoon Rest-D” long-range surveillance radar was able to provide a rough track of Nighthawks within a 15-mile range when tuned down to the lowest possible bandwidth—so low, in fact, that NATO radar-warning receivers were not calibrated to detect it. (Dani initially claimed he had modified the P-18’s hardware to achieve this, but later admitted this was a hoax.)

However, low-bandwidth radars are imprecise and cannot provide a ‘weapons-grade’ lock. However, that the NATO mission planners had complacently scheduled the stealth bombers on predictable, routine flight patterns. Worse, the Serbs had managed to break into NATO communications and could overhear conversations between U.S. fighters and the airborne radar planes directing them, allowing Dani to piece together a accurate picture of those routines.

So there are a few things can be done, as well as work on an integrated radar network, like the US SAGE, so one radar could 'share' return info

The fact they managed to down a F117 comes down to stupidity, the USAF kept running their Nighthawks in using the same approach down to ingress time(!), altitude, heading and speed for several days in a row. The S-75 and S125's were effectively salvo fired. The fact that the F117 was detectable to low frequency radars was well known to the USAF and NATO, that the USAF lost a stealth fighter comes down to incompetence and the Serbs taking advantage of a NATO tactical failure.

 

[marathag]

The fact they managed to down a F117 comes down to stupidity, the USAF kept running their Nighthawks in using the same approach down to ingress time(!), altitude, heading and speed for several days in a row. The S-75 and S125's were effectively salvo fired. The fact that the F117 was detectable to low frequency radars was well known to the USAF and NATO, that the USAF lost a stealth fighter comes down to incompetence and the Serbs taking advantage of a NATO tactical failure.

Salvo firing SA-3 won't help, unless you are within 20 degrees of the plotted target.

You miss the big point

Zoltan’s unit didn’t lose a single SAM battery despite the twenty-three HARM missiles shot at him by NATO war planes.

Yeah they had to work at getting a Stealth Fighter, but that just shows that anything with more than that small radar return would be far easier to hit.

Training, and knowing the exact limits of your gear, and how to use their advantages to the max, is the story to take away here

 

[Khanzeer]

IMHO,

I suspect if the Soviets had attempted this in the 1950's and 1960's the experiences of the Vietnamese in countering the line backer raids in 1972 and the Arab experiences in the Yom Kippur war and the subsequent conflict over Lebanon in 1983 would lead to a change in doctrine.

Edit to add:
I suspect the U.S. use of PGM's over North Vietnam and their ability to fly high altitude B52 missions over areas defended by SAM's would have been a significant wake up call. (Ie visions of USAF aircraft being able to potentially roam the rear areas of a Soviet Army while flying high enough to avoid most guns and many SAMS, while employing PGM's against high value targets would likely be an unpleasant thought for the Red Army.)

how would you rate Soviet air defence system [ minus interceptors] against non-NATO airforces like Japan, Pakistan, egypt, china, iran etc during the 1960-1985 era ?

 

[Blue cat]

how would you rate Soviet air defence system [ minus interceptors] against non-NATO airforces like Japan, Pakistan, egypt, china, iran etc during the 1960-1985 era ?

I really don't know.

If I had to guess I would say it would probably do ok against most (if not all) non NATO airforces, but determined efforts would likely get some aircraft over their targets. Unless the non NATO airforces were using nuclear weapons I doubt they could do much damage against the Red Army before suffering crippling losses.

 

[Khanzeer]

I really don't know.

If I had to guess I would say it would probably do ok against most (if not all) non NATO airforces, but determined efforts would likely get some aircraft over their targets. Unless the non NATO airforces were using nuclear weapons I doubt they could do much damage against the Red Army before suffering crippling losses.

Sure I meant success of soviet SAM as defined by ability to inflict significant attrition on attacking enemy aircraft without much help from friendly interceptor forces.
It seems like apart from USA, israel and major NATO airforces like France, UK germany, most other airforces even some NATO ones [ e.g Turkish greek] would face signifcant difficulties given the relative paucity of PGM and ARM in their inventories until the end of cold war.Plus did any other airforces [ other than the ones listed earlier] train regularly in SEAD operations ?

 

[Blue cat]

how would you rate Soviet air defence system [ minus interceptors] against non-NATO airforces like Japan, Pakistan, egypt, china, iran etc during the 1960-1985 era ?

I really don't know. If I had to guess I would say it would probably do ok against most non NATO airforces, but determined efforts would likely get some aircraft over their targets. Unless the non NATO airforces were using nuclear weapons I doubt they could do much damage against the Red Army before suffering crippling losses.

Sure I meant success of soviet SAM as defined by ability to inflict significant attrition on attacking enemy aircraft without much help from friendly interceptor forces.
It seems like apart from USA, israel and major NATO airforces like France, UK germany, most other airforces even some NATO ones [ e.g Turkish greek] would face signifcant difficulties given the relative paucity of PGM and ARM in their inventories until the end of cold war.Plus did any other airforces [ other than the ones listed earlier] train regularly in SEAD operations ?

Well I suppose the Australians for example might be able to fly strikes using their F111's (which I seem to recall also were equipped with PGM's but I don't recall the dates when they were acquired) with a reasonable attrition level, but with only a couple of dozen air frames how much damage could they actually do to the entire Red Army ?

The Chinese probably had enough air frames and pilots to fly lots of missions, but again how much damage would they actually have done in that time frame ?

Presumably the Soviets would also have been flying their own counter air missions against the air bases of their enemies.

I suppose one can speculate endlessly.

 

[Michele]

Eh, taking out SAMs and ground based radars has never really been as easy as you are making it out to be, save against rank incompetents.

Never said it would be easy; the anti-SAM aircraft would not be immune from losses. But note the important part: while doing their job against ground defenses, they would not need to worry about enemy fighters. That does not make the work entirely "easy", but it definitely makes it easier than otherwise.

 

[AdA]

Most B-52s OTL were gotten by SA-2, that were getting long in the Tooth by 1972. Had the Soviet given state of the art(for the USSR, anyway) SARH SA-5 Gammon to the North, the USAF and USN losses would have been even higher after 1968.

But the USSR being what it was, it didn't even export these to the Warsaw Pact nations till quite late, let alone a 3rd rate Client state like North Vietnam

It would also allow the USAF to develop counter mesures that could be used in a global war.

 

[Khanzeer]

I really don't know. If I had to guess I would say it would probably do ok against most non NATO airforces, but determined efforts would likely get some aircraft over their targets. Unless the non NATO airforces were using nuclear

Well I suppose the Australians for example might be able to fly strikes using their F111's (which I seem to recall also were equipped with PGM's but I don't recall the dates when they were acquired) with a reasonable attrition level, but with only a couple of dozen air frames how much damage could they actually do to the entire Red Army ?

The Chinese probably had enough air frames and pilots to fly lots of missions, but again how much damage would they actually have done in that time frame ?

Presumably the Soviets would also have been flying their own counter air missions against the air bases of their enemies.

I suppose one can speculate endlessly.

Well Australians do not share a land border with USSR so they are pretty safe and can do considerable damage to any Soviet expeditionary force

Chinese before 1990 have hardly any strike aircraft with conventional PGM so that will be IMHO their Achilles heel, their huge numbers can be useful missile sponges though allowing their few Badger clone bombers to strike deeper

 

[marathag]

It would also allow the USAF to develop counter mesures that could be used in a global war.

That was OTL, the B-52Ds didn't have the ECM suite that the B-52Gs onward had, but even that didn't help with Linebacker I and II, with B-52Gs were knocked out by SA-2s.
That led to the H model getting more and more ECM improvements as the years went by

 

[Khanzeer]

The use of tactics such as using fighter bombers to lay chaff corridors to screen larger air craft would also seem hard for the Soviets to counter without their own fighters. If NATO doesn't need to provide fighter escorts for strike missions and can use the aircraft that would have been flying fighter escort missions to lay chaff corridors, fire anti radiation missiles and perhaps engage in stand off jamming the situation will be even harder for the Soviets to deal with.

are chaff corridors a useful barrier agaisnt airborne radars too ? i.e can the AWACS and radars of fighter planes also be affected by them ?

I was reading in the airforces magazine that WP strike plans on NATO airbases involved creating chaff corridors like you describe above , does that mean they could also be able to confuse NATO interceptor fighters as well or just ground based radars ?

 

[Blue cat]

are chaff corridors a useful barrier agaisnt airborne radars too ? i.e can the AWACS and radars of fighter planes also be affected by them ?

I was reading in the airforces magazine that WP strike plans on NATO airbases involved creating chaff corridors like you describe above , does that mean they could also be able to confuse NATO interceptor fighters as well or just ground based radars ?

I really don't know.

If I had to guess I would suspect chaff corridors would be less useful against airborne radars, as the air borne radars can move

 

[Blue cat]

That was OTL, the B-52Ds didn't have the ECM suite that the B-52Gs onward had, but even that didn't help with Linebacker I and II, with B-52Gs were knocked out by SA-2s.
That led to the H model getting more and more ECM improvements as the years went by

My very cloudy recollection from readings from a few decades ago is that some of the G models used in the line backer raids didn't have the same ECM updates that the D models used in the raids had. The rear gunner in the D model reportedly also was helpful in spotting incoming SAM's.

My appologies if I am mis remembering these details.

I recall reading a book (perhaps called "Linebacker" ?) that spoke to these issues in some detail.

 

[Khanzeer]

Sorry to bump this up but feel like my next post did not need a new thread

Did USSR ever consider having counter-air / air defence divisions?
The idea is to have to have a concentrated force of multiple types of self propelled tracked/ wheeled SAM units grouped togather under one command.With overlapping envelopes and backed by mobile AA guns.Approxomate size of this force will be a division with SA4/SA2 handling long range, SA6 medium and SA3/8/9 handling low altitude threats.How many radars and SAM units can be operated by such a division size force ? IF such a division exist it can be air transportable and be used to boost the air defences of any corps or army [ which already have their organic SAM units ] plus they can also reinforce static defences too as needed ( supplementing likes of SA5).

 

[Barry Bull]

how would you rate Soviet air defence system [ minus interceptors] against non-NATO airforces like Japan, Pakistan, egypt, china, iran etc during the 1960-1985 era ?

Very well. Most of these countries except Pakistan, Egypt and Iran focused on air defence and lack sufficient ground attack aircrafts.

 

[Barry Bull]

2 pages long already and no one mentioned how large USSR was and how many parts of its land is not suitable habitation.

The reason why the Soviets developed large interceptors is to ensure sufficient of its vast and hostile territory which would render reliance of SAMs too costly in both manpower and money. Also, no one want to live in wilderness, both officers and conscripts.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Sorry to bump this up but feel like my next post did not need a new thread

Did USSR ever consider having counter-air / air defence divisions?
The idea is to have to have a concentrated force of multiple types of self propelled tracked/ wheeled SAM units grouped togather under one command.With overlapping envelopes and backed by mobile AA guns.Approxomate size of this force will be a division with SA4/SA2 handling long range, SA6 medium and SA3/8/9 handling low altitude threats.How many radars and SAM units can be operated by such a division size force ? IF such a division exist it can be air transportable and be used to boost the air defences of any corps or army [ which already have their organic SAM units ] plus they can also reinforce static defences too as needed ( supplementing likes of SA5).

Soviet Air Defense Forces were a branch of their armed services, like army or navy. They certainly had air defence divisions and corps etc, although they didn't just include missiles. Fighters, radars, and AA guns/missiles all came under their command.