Does the Russian Tor-M1 render most of the USAF worthless?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
The Russian Tor-M1 can track 48 targets with Radar Cross Sections of greater than 0.1m squared engaging two at a time up to 6,000 meters altitude.

That is all US aircraft except the listed RCS for the F-22 and B-2 and SR-71. Of course not knowing all aspects some aspects of the F-22 may be able to be seen by this radar and with other support it may not matter.

So deployed does this pose a serious threat to the F-16 and F-18 etc?



ape

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   
these installations would be taken out by cruise missles etc before any kind of aircraft would be over the sky, it's foolish to think the US would just send all of their birds over the sky to be shot down.

westpoint wasnt the f-22 designed to take out installations such these?

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
of course it does not .

i am unsure of its minimum RCS resolution - but the F14 tomcat could track 24 targets , and egage 6 - all from a 2 man plane

E-3 AWACS and JSTARS can track multiple targets and direct weapons egagements

the AEGIS cruisers can track over 100 , plus direct other units weapons

do these render every one elses aircraft obsolete ??



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The Tor-M1 is not a long range SAM, it is more of a point defense system. It's tracking and kill ranges are limited, the Tor will most likely end up shooting down some munitions (cruise missiles, bomb ect...) rather than aircraft. However this is it's weakness, in the absence of a long range overlapping SAM system the Tor cannot operate by itself, especially in fixed position. Having only 8 missiles and not shooting down the launch aircraft is problematic since you will be overwhelmed, not to mention a high ECM environment with multiple aircraft flying SEAD/DEAD missions. The F-22 could fly right over a Tor and not get shot down but that's a different story. Point is no it does not make the USAF anywhere near "obsolete".



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
"to 6,000 meters altitude" sais it all. That's 18 000 feet, I doubt it will be a problem.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
these installations would be taken out by cruise missles etc before any kind of aircraft would be over the sky,


Cruise missiles are not very effective and the Serbs managed to destroy them by the dozens by both active and passive means. Modern air defense systems are very much designed to actively engage cruise missiles anyways and the Russians have long focused on it considering how easily the US could potentially saturate their air defenses with cruises missiles launched en mass from large rail or ground mobile platforms since short range ballistic missiles were not going to have much effect after the late 60's .


it's foolish to think the US would just send all of their birds over the sky to be shot down.


Indeed.


westpoint wasnt the f-22 designed to take out installations such these?


The F-22 is designed to clear the skies of enemy specialized air defense fighters so that SEAD and DEAD activities can proceed at maximum efficiency. That being said the F-22 could be employed against static air defenses or general strategic targets as it has a far better chance of arriving at such in one piece. In my opinion SEAD and DEAD wont be at all effective against nations who can deploy the same resources but in modern Sam's and air defense systems as those now hold a clear edge without anywhere near the technological or resource bases required.. Both the Serbs and the Chechen's proved what highly trained operators could achieve against supposedly overwhelming force.

If you look at the F-22's internal layout you will quickly realise that specialized weapons will have to be designed if it's every going to be required to serve in the DEAD capacity against anything but outdated or badly managed air defenses.

Stellar



[edit on 17-12-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Cruise missiles are not very effective and the Serbs managed to destroy them by the dozens by both active and passive means.


Do you have any evidence of this.


ape

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
sup stellar, in your opinion how do you think the US would go about taking out these installations?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
Do you have any evidence of this.


About how effective Serbian air defenses were against cruises missiles or how effective modern air defenses are against cruise missiles? It seems to me that you have already made up your mind so lets have you commit to something specific so i can properly show you up. I really should try to be more vindictive.

Stellar


ape

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
did the serbs render every class of cruise missile useless? which class was the US using or were they using all of them?

was the agm-129a used? www.defencetalk.com...

after doing more research i found out they only used CALCM'S and tomahawks not ACM's which are more capable and that was just in 1999

"On the night of 24 March 1999, NATO aircraft struck at targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo as part of OPERATION ALLIED FORCE, mounted in response to Serbian ethnic-cleansing efforts in Kosovo. The first wave of attacks was led by cruise missile strikes. USAF B-52Hs fired CALCMs. The Royal Navy also used their new Tomahawks in action for the first time, with the SPLENDID firing them at Yugoslav air defense systems along with Tomahawks fired by US Navy ships. A total of 100 cruise missiles were launched by USAF bombers and US Navy vessels, along with the British contribution. "

and before back in 1995

"On 10 September 1995, the US Navy also launched 13 Tomahawks against surface to air missile sites in Bosnia as part of OPERATION DELIBERATE FORCE, the successful UN/NATO effort to force Serbia to the peace table. "

www.vectorsite.net...


stellar and westpoint are you sure different class cruise missiles wouldn't work against an array of air defense installations? they only used tomahawks and CALCM'S.

the way I look at it is this, if the US was to attack any kind of SAM installation they would not hold back on the number of missles used to take out these installations. the objective would be completed one way or another.



[edit on 17-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Obviously it doesn't render them worthless, but it is nonetheless a very capable air-defence system within its intended operational context. The US has yet to fight a conventional war against any adversery with anything like the capability of the Tor, although Iraq's Roland SAMs in 1991 are in some regards similar.

In a conventional war I do not think that the US yet has the capability to eliminate all mobile SAM threats before comitting helicopters and other high-risk air units into the fight - and it is these low-flying assets that would suffer most. Aircraft like the A-10 and Apache, and AC-130 would rightly be VERY concerned about even small numbers of Tor wandering around the battlefield.

It should also be noted that there are many more SAM systems that would be similarly capable to the Tor, such as VL-Mica, Spyder, ADATS, Starstreak, BAMSE, Buk, KSAM-Pegasus, Chu-SAM etc etc.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
The US has yet to fight a conventional war against any adversery with anything like the capability of the Tor, although Iraq's Roland SAMs in 1991 are in some regards similar.


Likewise no one else has recently fought a conventional war against any adversary with the capabilities of the US and USAF, until then...


Originally posted by planeman
In a conventional war I do not think that the US yet has the capability to eliminate all mobile SAM threats before comitting helicopters and other high-risk air units into the fight...


Who does? In a war such as this casualties are to be expected, point is who is more effective in the long run. I have yet to see the full capabilities of the US.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ape
these installations would be taken out by cruise missles etc before any kind of aircraft would be over the sky, it's foolish to think the US would just send all of their birds over the sky to be shot down.

westpoint wasnt the f-22 designed to take out installations such these?

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]


Funny you should mention that it has about a 70% kill rate on Cruise missiles...if not 95% itself.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
"to 6,000 meters altitude" sais it all. That's 18 000 feet, I doubt it will be a problem.


Above about 15,000 feet above ground an aircraft's effectiveness is greatly reduced this was obvserved in Afghanistan when stingers pushed Soviet Airpower above that limit to remove them from close ground support.


ape

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
please post proof of your statistics, there are many different class cruise missiles and the agm-129a is a stealth cruise missile, the only cruise missiles that have been shot down are tomahawks and CALCM'S, all of which the agm-129a performs better than.

i asked this question when it was mentioned "cruise" missiles are easily taken out yet nobody highlighted on the different class of cruise missiles that were and were not used in those operations.

[edit on 18-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 18-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The serbs did use very effective tactics against cruise missles but that was done mostly by camoflague and fake targets. Apparantly only a percentage close to 10% of all bombs against millitairy targets were succesfull due to this tactic. However this isnt because of theire equipment but mostly due to using theire brains.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The serbs did use very effective tactics against cruise missles but that was done mostly by camoflague and fake targets.


Actually even static strategic targets survived long into the war and i am not sure how you are supposed to disguise a airfield or heavy arms factory these days.


"WASHINGTON--.
The figures indicate that while more than five weeks of pounding have badly damaged important parts of the nation's military infrastructure, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic retains many of his field forces and air defenses, and much of his fuel and ammunition. His forces generally can communicate with each other, maneuver and arrange for resupply.
The Yugoslav army still has 80% to 90% of its tanks, 75% of its most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and 60% of its MIG fighter planes, according to official estimates released during the past week. And although NATO warplanes have blown up the major rail links into Kosovo, five of the province's eight major roads remain at least partially passable.
Despite NATO's ability to strike big, immobile targets with precision weapons, its warplanes have failed to attack 80% of the Yugoslav army's barracks. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have also left untouched, or only lightly damaged, 80% of Yugoslavia's ammunition depots, officials say.

Officials have disclosed that NATO planes have blasted 31 fixed communications sites. Yet Clark acknowledged that damage to the military communications system was only "moderate to severe" because of the system's many redundancies, as well as the Serbs' ability to improvise.
Indeed, Clark acknowledged that the Yugoslav military's command-and-control system has been well-shielded and versatile, with fiber-optics, cables and microwaves. It overlaps with the commercial system in ways that make it hard to take down.
Despite the damage to many of its best planes, the MIG fighters, the Yugoslav air force still has 380 of its 450 aircraft. Eight of the country's 17 airfields have not been struck, and six more have sustained only moderate or light damage.
Although Clark declared that the Serbs' integrated air defense system is now "ineffective" overall, it remains a powerful defensive weapon: It has kept NATO planes generally at altitudes above 15,000 feet, too high to most effectively hit Milosevic's field forces.
And U.S. forces report that Serbian air defense troops are not ducking combat, as most Americans think, but are engaged in tactical games with the NATO fliers in a bid to lure them into missile and artillery traps.
"Day after day, we see an intricate cat-and-mouse game played between us," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Mark Kirk, a reservist assigned to an attack wing of radar-jamming planes at Aviano Air Base in Italy.
By official estimates, the Serbs still have three-quarters of their most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles, the mobile SA-6, and 60% of their less sophisticated SA-2s and SA-3s.
Many outside analysts acknowledge that they have been surprised by the relative lack of damage done so far by the air campaign.
At this rate, "it would take a very long time to destroy Yugoslavia's military," said Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who conducted a lengthy study of the 1991 Persian Gulf War for the Air Force.

www.aeronautics.ru...


I had to cut rather important parts to keep it within ( i think anyways) the limits imposed on this forum so please read the entire article...


Apparantly only a percentage close to 10% of all bombs against millitairy targets were succesfull due to this tactic.



Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces.[12] Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

www.answers.com...


I am not sure where you came up with the 10% number as that is still as far as i can tell a huge overestimation of the munitions that were in fact effectively deployed/employed...


However this isnt because of theire equipment but mostly due to using theire brains.


Agreed but the equipment were not really bad either!


The SA-6 has been referred to as the "grandfather" of all SAMs. Although production finished around twenty years ago it is probably still the most ubiquitous Soviet SAM design (which it seems the SA-11 and SA-17 are descendents of) with over 850 launchers built in total and exports to 22-25 countries (although it is retired in Russia - shortly before the breakup of the Soviet Union it was replaced by the SA-11).

It has probably seen more action than any other Russian SAM system: it was used during the 1967 Six-Day War (shot down 65 Israeli aircraft, 95 missiles fired in total), the 1971 India-Pakistan War, and more recently during the 1991 Gulf War, and the NATO actions in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Many aircraft losses (particularly during the Gulf War) were due to SA-6 battery operators using the aforementioned technique of not turning their radars on for more than a few seconds and relying on the IR homing of the missiles themselves, thus not alerting the pilots to the danger.

everything2.com...


I am of the opinion that the allies in fact lost far more planes than they are admitting to but for now that will have to remain just my opinion as i have little in the way of what i would normally consider 'proof'.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Since Vietnam (and that could be argued), no anti-aircraft system has prevented the US from carrying out its air strategies.

You may shoot down some aircraft here and there, but if most aircraft complete their mission, then that's not good for you.

More US aircraft are lost to training / operational accidents than enemy fire.

For the Russians, their new system will be considered a success if it exports well--it doesn't have to shoot down a thing.

Remember the first shots of the 1st Gulf War were Apaches knocking out Iraqi early warning systems. Good intel is a must.

The best air defence is having air superiority.

BTW The Serbs did shoot down a F117, so nothing is ever completely safe or flawless.

[edit on 18-12-2006 by DoBravery]


ape

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I keep trying to get a response but have failed in doing so about the AGM-129a stealth ACM being able to take out the tor-m1 in regards to the opinion about cruise missiles being obsolete against air defenses.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by planeman
In a conventional war I do not think that the US yet has the capability to eliminate all mobile SAM threats before comitting helicopters and other high-risk air units into the fight...


Who does? In a war such as this casualties are to be expected, point is who is more effective in the long run. I have yet to see the full capabilities of the US.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by WestPoint23]
No one has, that's the point. That's the strength of advanced SAM systems for wouldbe "rogue" states - the Serbian Airforce barely got off a shot, as did the Iraqis. But the SAM units which were far cheaper to purchase/maintain lasted much longer and were generally more successful, particularly the Serbs'. Countries like Iran no doubt observed this.

America is about the only country who nearly only has to concern themselves with OFFENSIVE scenarios. No one is going to invade USA, whereas the reverse is evidently not the case (not a political statement BTW). USA only has to worry about how its aircraft will fare in enemy territory because short of conventional war with EU, India, Russia or China, no one would get their air forces into US occupied territory. Equivilent American SHORAD systems are much the same as the SA-15 in terms of deadliness, but they are unlikely to ever be tested in the same way as the SA-15 inevitably will.

Interestingly enough most main US client-states use non-US SHORAD systems in the equivilent roles as the SA-15; seems like the French Crotale NG is the export leader for the Western world in this catagory.




[edit on 18-12-2006 by planeman]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join