Solving the problem of "saturating" air defense attacks
19 April 2019 of the Year "Military Review" published an article “The air defense breakthrough by exceeding its ability to intercept targets: solutions”. The author, Andrei Mitrofanov, raised an extremely important and very interesting topic and highlighted the problem that in the very near future would “drive” classical air defense systems to a dead end. We are talking about the so-called “saturating” attack, when the number of targets (let's not talk, real or real and false together) significantly exceeds the fire performance of the defending air defense systems.
Unfortunately, having raised the problem and very carefully pointing out its various aspects, the author went “not there” in search of an answer to the question of how to solve this problem.
We will understand.
The saturation of the defender’s fire system with such a number of targets that he cannot technically hit is a very old tactical device, and not only in air warfare. This method requires the use of a large number of forces and means in an attack, but it gives a lot: if the defender cannot destroy all the targets, then his defeat becomes not very difficult - of course, if the defender's capabilities are calculated correctly.
To modern air defense, which is built around anti-aircraft guided missiles, this applies to the maximum extent. It should be understood that in fact we are dealing with two different problems.
The first is the use of false targets to disguise real means of air attack (EAS).
The most famous false target to cover shock aviation and guided missiles from air defense systems - this is the American MALD. One attack aircraft of the US Air Force in an attack can carry 12 or more of these missiles that will divert the fire of ground defense. Together with the airplanes-jammers with whom the Americans accompany the strike groups, and adjusted for the number of planes in the strike group (20-50), the problem of hitting all targets detected by air defense systems is unsolvable, if only because of the limited ammunition, which is good the author writes.
Experts and non-specialists are discussing the idea of selecting false targets. In any case, the signature of a false target and a real aviation weapon (TSA) will be different. A relatively small distance at which the battle is conducted (tens of kilometers) can allow, under certain conditions, this signature to be considered.
However, this is, firstly, a big question, and secondly, the development of missiles - false targets will sooner or later lead to the indistinguishability of their signatures with those of real EAS or TSA (especially when it comes to the destruction of the TSA - bombs or missiles) . And thirdly, and this is the most important thing, if someday the possibility of such a selection is realized, the problem of saturating air defense attacks will simply turn into another form.
So, problem number two - air defense can be saturated ONLY with the help of TSA, without false targets. Then all or almost all of the goals will be real, and they will need to be destroyed or removed by interference all, without exception.
How much is in question?
Well, let's count.
Suppose we have an attacking group of X-NUMX-x F-22E planes, each of which carries 15 small GBU-20 / B planning bombs, distraction groups of six of the same "Strike Needles" carrying false targets MALD on 53, and of the eight F-12CJ air defense suppression groups armed with an APM AGM-16 HARM pair. Since even for such a group, the air defense breakthrough is not guaranteed, then at the same time an 88 F-10E is hit on the object with the help of the AGM-15 planning bombs dropped from a great height, in the amount of 154 units per plane.
According to the plan, the actions of the group armed with AGM-154 JSOW will force the enemy to detect themselves by turning on the radar and launching the missiles, which will allow the F-16CJ hiding at low altitudes to release their 16 PI, which should destroy the long-range radar air defense missile system, which has worked on and leave only anti-aircraft cover systems, which will be used to reset 154 planning bombs with F-440E, and to ensure that the survivors of long-range air defense systems and short-range air defense systems do not hit the main attack group, 15 false MALD targets are used.
We will not fantasize about how this fight ended. It is better to calculate how many targets need to be “dumped” by the attacked air defenses.
Aircraft - 46.
PRR - 16.
False targets - 72.
Planning bombs AGM-154 - 20.
GBU-53 / B planning bombs - 440.
Total - 594 goals.
If it seems to someone that these scales are too large for a real war, then let them study the attack on the reactor in Ozirak (the same one that the Israelis did not finish off at one time) by the US Air Force in 1991 - in the attacking group there were 32 attack aircraft and 43 of support aircraft (escort interceptors, jammers and PRR carriers, tankers). This is the norm for the attack of a more or less fortified object.
Even if everything except the last wave of small bombs is removed from the scheme, and even if we assume that one bomb is throwing 1,5 missiles, then the number of missiles in the defending air defense system and the air defense system must be fantastic. And even more fantastic will be their price - no matter how cheap small-sized rockets are, the anti-aircraft installations themselves do not belong to cheap equipment. Will our budget “pull” hundreds of new air defense missile systems and thousands of disposable anti-aircraft missiles? The answer is obvious.
At sea, the problem is even more acute: there it is impossible neither to hide the parameters of the air defense systems (they are known for each type of ships) from the enemy, nor to replenish the ammunition assembly of the ship-based air defense systems between attacks. And in the early eighties, American consumption rates for hitting shipboard strike groups were counted in dozens of missiles in the first attacking wave, with the task BRIEF to block the firing performance of Soviet shipboard air defense systems.
However, the Americans are in a similar position. No matter how they would improve the electronics and computers of their AEGIS, the “ceiling” of their fire performance does not change, is determined by the Mk.41 launcher and its method of connecting to the shipboard BIUS and is 0,5 anti-aircraft missiles per second. Multiplying this by the number of URO ships in the warrant, we will get the fire performance limit, which on the current ships they are not something that can not be overstepped.
Nothing prevents us from allocating an amount of anti-ship missiles for an attack, just as accurately BRIEF to block this fire performance.
We summarize: any air defense system is “saturated” before losing the ability to hit targets and is immediately destroyed. The attacking side will ALWAYS be able to use more TSA than the defender has anti-aircraft missiles. It is impossible to repel such attacks by rockets using existing methods.
But this does not mean that the "sword" defeated the "shield".
Our good old friends come to the rescue - anti-aircraft guns.
The trend for the emergence of medium and large caliber anti-aircraft systems in the world has been clearly visible for a long time. Any naval cannon is universal and can shoot at air targets. The appearance of guided projectiles or projectiles with programmable detonation dramatically expands their combat capabilities. In this case, if we talk about systems caliber 57-76 mm, then they are also pretty fast-fired.
Here, for example, our legendary and quite “land” fires C-60, The “heroine” of the Vietnam War.
Why is this caliber remarkable? By the fact that, on the one hand, it is realistic to make a projectile with a programmable detonation, and on the other hand, to ensure a high rate of fire, substantially exceeding one shot per second.
And this is the solution: in response to a hail of small bombs, send them towards a wave of cheap compared to anti-aircraft missiles, hang a “steel wall” in the way of TSA. Today, many countries are working on such projects. Here is a "top" foreign example to which one should strive.
However, we are interested in solutions that are compatible with our realities, and there are such solutions.
We look at this gun module from the Slovenian Valhalla turrets. Familiar barrel, is not it? So. This is our C-60, but on an autonomous crewless turret, with an optical-electronic guidance system, with twin machine guns and rockets for firing a volley. Not visible from the outside, but the “cassette” with 4 shells on this installation has been replaced by an 92-charging magazine. Novelty called "Desert Spider". Details here.
Take a slightly more extreme example — our own 100-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-19who also fought with the Americans. According to some sources, the last time such a gun shot down a combat aircraft during the “Storm in the Desert”, and it was the Tornado fighter-bomber at the height of 6700 meters.
This is what was done with this instrument in Iran:
It is worth noting that in calibers 76 and more than millimeters it is possible to create not only a projectile with a programmable detonation, but also a guided projectile, in its effectiveness is not inferior to the “Pantsirevskomu” “Nail.” But due to the absence of the first stage with the engine is much cheaper.
It is worth noting that the high-rate of fire and the ability to fire at air targets was achieved on the Russian-made sea cannons.
This is 76-mm AK-176.
And this - 100-mm A-190 with corvette "lively"
Now we count. The battery is 4 guns, with a firing rate of at least 60 shots per minute (it must be understood that the practical rate of fire is below the technical), they will shoot 240 shells at the enemy. If they are 76-100 mm guns, then all of them can be controlled. If 57-mm, then with a remote impulse, but there is talk about about 400 shells per minute.
And two batteries of the same 100 millimeter is 480 guided anti-aircraft projectiles per minute.
This is the solution. Not an insane increase in the number of TPCs with missiles on the air defense system, in an attempt to embrace the immense (although the combat readiness must be increased within reasonable limits). A combination of medium or large caliber automatic anti-aircraft cannon with a controlled anti-aircraft projectile and / or a programmable projectile projectile.
And here we have a good one news. Russia is the world leader in terms of technologies for creating such tools. At least, while some are building experimental models with our old 57-mm cannon, we have almost ready combat vehicles.
So, the combat vehicle born within the framework of the OCR "Derivation-Air Defense" is a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex with the 2C38 combat vehicle.
This is an anti-aircraft automatic cannon caliber 57 mm, mounted on the BMP-3 chassis. Its characteristic feature is only passive, non-emitting guidance systems. Find such a machine at times more difficult than any air defense system.
Brief characteristics:
The maximum range of destruction - 6 km.
The maximum height of the lesion is 4,5 km.
The rate of fire - 120 shots per minute.
Full ammunition - 148 shots.
Vertical guidance angle - 5 degrees / + 75 degrees.
Horizontal pointing angle - 360 hail.
The maximum speed of the targets hit is 500 m / s.
Calculation - 3 people.
From blog "Center AST".
Control system of anti-aircraft fire produced by JSC "Peleng" (Belarus).
This is so correct course of thought that I want to jump and clap for the joy of our ground forces. It remains only to wait for the projectile with a programmable detonation and the final adjustment of the machine according to the test results.
Of course, we also need a car for jamming in the radar, infrared and optical bands. It is necessary to ensure the firing of the battery and the division with the distribution of targets between the guns. It is necessary to ensure coordination with the air defense system and to work out a joint application. But without this new art. the system is a giant breakthrough step in the right direction. Although we, of course, can not relax.
And on navy urgently need to solve the issue with guided anti-aircraft shells calibers 76, 100 and 130 mm. And the work of ship’s guns in collective air defense mode. It is also worth evaluating the correctness of the transition to a single gun mount on the bow for all classes of ships - it is possible that on large ships it is worth considering a return to double-tower architecture. However, this is not a fact, which is true, and should be the subject of study.
One way or another, but thanks to the perspicacity of someone in the land forces, Russia had a very good foundation for the era of supermassive air strikes. He, it is worth noting, does not cancel the anti-aircraft missile systems, it complements them. Occupying their own special niche. In the future, anti-aircraft missiles and revived cannon anti-aircraft artillery will be used together.
It is necessary, however, to make a reservation.
Economically, our country is not so strong. And making a bet on the newest system for 57-mm projectile, you need to understand: there is not enough money for everything. Therefore, it is imperative that, simultaneously with the completion of work on the ROC “Derivation-Air Defense”, it is necessary to carry out work to modernize the C-60 stored in the image and likeness of the “Desert Spider”, but without excesses such as a paired machine gun or missiles - KamAZ or Ural trucks and tracked MTLB tractors. Such equipment is still a lot to be preserved, and the “merging” of the modernized 57-mm gun and landing gear from the presence should save a lot of money for the country. And money saved means more weapons and greater defenses.
And of course, it is worth considering the issue of returning large-caliber anti-aircraft guns to the system with the creation of a controlled projectile specially for them. As already mentioned, the caliber 57 mm allows you to make a projectile with a programmable detonation, but does not allow you to make a full-fledged controlled with a powerful explosive charge. 100-mm caliber is another matter. And Russia, with its scientific and technical potential, can do this much better than Iran.
We have all the trump cards in our hands, we just need to correctly go with them.
Let's hope it happens one day.
Unfortunately, having raised the problem and very carefully pointing out its various aspects, the author went “not there” in search of an answer to the question of how to solve this problem.
We will understand.
The saturation of the defender’s fire system with such a number of targets that he cannot technically hit is a very old tactical device, and not only in air warfare. This method requires the use of a large number of forces and means in an attack, but it gives a lot: if the defender cannot destroy all the targets, then his defeat becomes not very difficult - of course, if the defender's capabilities are calculated correctly.
To modern air defense, which is built around anti-aircraft guided missiles, this applies to the maximum extent. It should be understood that in fact we are dealing with two different problems.
The first is the use of false targets to disguise real means of air attack (EAS).
The most famous false target to cover shock aviation and guided missiles from air defense systems - this is the American MALD. One attack aircraft of the US Air Force in an attack can carry 12 or more of these missiles that will divert the fire of ground defense. Together with the airplanes-jammers with whom the Americans accompany the strike groups, and adjusted for the number of planes in the strike group (20-50), the problem of hitting all targets detected by air defense systems is unsolvable, if only because of the limited ammunition, which is good the author writes.
Experts and non-specialists are discussing the idea of selecting false targets. In any case, the signature of a false target and a real aviation weapon (TSA) will be different. A relatively small distance at which the battle is conducted (tens of kilometers) can allow, under certain conditions, this signature to be considered.
However, this is, firstly, a big question, and secondly, the development of missiles - false targets will sooner or later lead to the indistinguishability of their signatures with those of real EAS or TSA (especially when it comes to the destruction of the TSA - bombs or missiles) . And thirdly, and this is the most important thing, if someday the possibility of such a selection is realized, the problem of saturating air defense attacks will simply turn into another form.
So, problem number two - air defense can be saturated ONLY with the help of TSA, without false targets. Then all or almost all of the goals will be real, and they will need to be destroyed or removed by interference all, without exception.
How much is in question?
Well, let's count.
Suppose we have an attacking group of X-NUMX-x F-22E planes, each of which carries 15 small GBU-20 / B planning bombs, distraction groups of six of the same "Strike Needles" carrying false targets MALD on 53, and of the eight F-12CJ air defense suppression groups armed with an APM AGM-16 HARM pair. Since even for such a group, the air defense breakthrough is not guaranteed, then at the same time an 88 F-10E is hit on the object with the help of the AGM-15 planning bombs dropped from a great height, in the amount of 154 units per plane.
According to the plan, the actions of the group armed with AGM-154 JSOW will force the enemy to detect themselves by turning on the radar and launching the missiles, which will allow the F-16CJ hiding at low altitudes to release their 16 PI, which should destroy the long-range radar air defense missile system, which has worked on and leave only anti-aircraft cover systems, which will be used to reset 154 planning bombs with F-440E, and to ensure that the survivors of long-range air defense systems and short-range air defense systems do not hit the main attack group, 15 false MALD targets are used.
We will not fantasize about how this fight ended. It is better to calculate how many targets need to be “dumped” by the attacked air defenses.
Aircraft - 46.
PRR - 16.
False targets - 72.
Planning bombs AGM-154 - 20.
GBU-53 / B planning bombs - 440.
Total - 594 goals.
If it seems to someone that these scales are too large for a real war, then let them study the attack on the reactor in Ozirak (the same one that the Israelis did not finish off at one time) by the US Air Force in 1991 - in the attacking group there were 32 attack aircraft and 43 of support aircraft (escort interceptors, jammers and PRR carriers, tankers). This is the norm for the attack of a more or less fortified object.
Even if everything except the last wave of small bombs is removed from the scheme, and even if we assume that one bomb is throwing 1,5 missiles, then the number of missiles in the defending air defense system and the air defense system must be fantastic. And even more fantastic will be their price - no matter how cheap small-sized rockets are, the anti-aircraft installations themselves do not belong to cheap equipment. Will our budget “pull” hundreds of new air defense missile systems and thousands of disposable anti-aircraft missiles? The answer is obvious.
At sea, the problem is even more acute: there it is impossible neither to hide the parameters of the air defense systems (they are known for each type of ships) from the enemy, nor to replenish the ammunition assembly of the ship-based air defense systems between attacks. And in the early eighties, American consumption rates for hitting shipboard strike groups were counted in dozens of missiles in the first attacking wave, with the task BRIEF to block the firing performance of Soviet shipboard air defense systems.
However, the Americans are in a similar position. No matter how they would improve the electronics and computers of their AEGIS, the “ceiling” of their fire performance does not change, is determined by the Mk.41 launcher and its method of connecting to the shipboard BIUS and is 0,5 anti-aircraft missiles per second. Multiplying this by the number of URO ships in the warrant, we will get the fire performance limit, which on the current ships they are not something that can not be overstepped.
Nothing prevents us from allocating an amount of anti-ship missiles for an attack, just as accurately BRIEF to block this fire performance.
We summarize: any air defense system is “saturated” before losing the ability to hit targets and is immediately destroyed. The attacking side will ALWAYS be able to use more TSA than the defender has anti-aircraft missiles. It is impossible to repel such attacks by rockets using existing methods.
But this does not mean that the "sword" defeated the "shield".
Our good old friends come to the rescue - anti-aircraft guns.
The trend for the emergence of medium and large caliber anti-aircraft systems in the world has been clearly visible for a long time. Any naval cannon is universal and can shoot at air targets. The appearance of guided projectiles or projectiles with programmable detonation dramatically expands their combat capabilities. In this case, if we talk about systems caliber 57-76 mm, then they are also pretty fast-fired.
Here, for example, our legendary and quite “land” fires C-60, The “heroine” of the Vietnam War.
Why is this caliber remarkable? By the fact that, on the one hand, it is realistic to make a projectile with a programmable detonation, and on the other hand, to ensure a high rate of fire, substantially exceeding one shot per second.
And this is the solution: in response to a hail of small bombs, send them towards a wave of cheap compared to anti-aircraft missiles, hang a “steel wall” in the way of TSA. Today, many countries are working on such projects. Here is a "top" foreign example to which one should strive.
However, we are interested in solutions that are compatible with our realities, and there are such solutions.
We look at this gun module from the Slovenian Valhalla turrets. Familiar barrel, is not it? So. This is our C-60, but on an autonomous crewless turret, with an optical-electronic guidance system, with twin machine guns and rockets for firing a volley. Not visible from the outside, but the “cassette” with 4 shells on this installation has been replaced by an 92-charging magazine. Novelty called "Desert Spider". Details here.
Desert Spider.
Take a slightly more extreme example — our own 100-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-19who also fought with the Americans. According to some sources, the last time such a gun shot down a combat aircraft during the “Storm in the Desert”, and it was the Tornado fighter-bomber at the height of 6700 meters.
This is what was done with this instrument in Iran:
It is worth noting that in calibers 76 and more than millimeters it is possible to create not only a projectile with a programmable detonation, but also a guided projectile, in its effectiveness is not inferior to the “Pantsirevskomu” “Nail.” But due to the absence of the first stage with the engine is much cheaper.
It is worth noting that the high-rate of fire and the ability to fire at air targets was achieved on the Russian-made sea cannons.
This is 76-mm AK-176.
And this - 100-mm A-190 with corvette "lively"
Now we count. The battery is 4 guns, with a firing rate of at least 60 shots per minute (it must be understood that the practical rate of fire is below the technical), they will shoot 240 shells at the enemy. If they are 76-100 mm guns, then all of them can be controlled. If 57-mm, then with a remote impulse, but there is talk about about 400 shells per minute.
And two batteries of the same 100 millimeter is 480 guided anti-aircraft projectiles per minute.
This is the solution. Not an insane increase in the number of TPCs with missiles on the air defense system, in an attempt to embrace the immense (although the combat readiness must be increased within reasonable limits). A combination of medium or large caliber automatic anti-aircraft cannon with a controlled anti-aircraft projectile and / or a programmable projectile projectile.
And here we have a good one news. Russia is the world leader in terms of technologies for creating such tools. At least, while some are building experimental models with our old 57-mm cannon, we have almost ready combat vehicles.
So, the combat vehicle born within the framework of the OCR "Derivation-Air Defense" is a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex with the 2C38 combat vehicle.
This is an anti-aircraft automatic cannon caliber 57 mm, mounted on the BMP-3 chassis. Its characteristic feature is only passive, non-emitting guidance systems. Find such a machine at times more difficult than any air defense system.
Brief characteristics:
The maximum range of destruction - 6 km.
The maximum height of the lesion is 4,5 km.
The rate of fire - 120 shots per minute.
Full ammunition - 148 shots.
Vertical guidance angle - 5 degrees / + 75 degrees.
Horizontal pointing angle - 360 hail.
The maximum speed of the targets hit is 500 m / s.
Calculation - 3 people.
From blog "Center AST".
The 2C38 combat vehicle is equipped with an optical-electronic detection and aiming system for the IES OP, developed by Minsk JSC "Peleng". It allows you to carry out panoramic observation of the terrain at 360 degrees, as well as keep a sector review. The detection range through one of the television channels of a small unmanned aerial vehicle of the Bird Eye 400 type in the viewing mode is stated in 700 m, in the narrow field of view mode - 4900 m. - in 10 6400 m. The thermal imaging channel allows you to detect 12 x 300 m targets with a 2,3% probability at a distance of 2,3 80 m and recognize them at a distance of 10 000 m.
Control system of anti-aircraft fire produced by JSC "Peleng" (Belarus).
This is so correct course of thought that I want to jump and clap for the joy of our ground forces. It remains only to wait for the projectile with a programmable detonation and the final adjustment of the machine according to the test results.
Of course, we also need a car for jamming in the radar, infrared and optical bands. It is necessary to ensure the firing of the battery and the division with the distribution of targets between the guns. It is necessary to ensure coordination with the air defense system and to work out a joint application. But without this new art. the system is a giant breakthrough step in the right direction. Although we, of course, can not relax.
And on navy urgently need to solve the issue with guided anti-aircraft shells calibers 76, 100 and 130 mm. And the work of ship’s guns in collective air defense mode. It is also worth evaluating the correctness of the transition to a single gun mount on the bow for all classes of ships - it is possible that on large ships it is worth considering a return to double-tower architecture. However, this is not a fact, which is true, and should be the subject of study.
One way or another, but thanks to the perspicacity of someone in the land forces, Russia had a very good foundation for the era of supermassive air strikes. He, it is worth noting, does not cancel the anti-aircraft missile systems, it complements them. Occupying their own special niche. In the future, anti-aircraft missiles and revived cannon anti-aircraft artillery will be used together.
It is necessary, however, to make a reservation.
Economically, our country is not so strong. And making a bet on the newest system for 57-mm projectile, you need to understand: there is not enough money for everything. Therefore, it is imperative that, simultaneously with the completion of work on the ROC “Derivation-Air Defense”, it is necessary to carry out work to modernize the C-60 stored in the image and likeness of the “Desert Spider”, but without excesses such as a paired machine gun or missiles - KamAZ or Ural trucks and tracked MTLB tractors. Such equipment is still a lot to be preserved, and the “merging” of the modernized 57-mm gun and landing gear from the presence should save a lot of money for the country. And money saved means more weapons and greater defenses.
And of course, it is worth considering the issue of returning large-caliber anti-aircraft guns to the system with the creation of a controlled projectile specially for them. As already mentioned, the caliber 57 mm allows you to make a projectile with a programmable detonation, but does not allow you to make a full-fledged controlled with a powerful explosive charge. 100-mm caliber is another matter. And Russia, with its scientific and technical potential, can do this much better than Iran.
We have all the trump cards in our hands, we just need to correctly go with them.
Let's hope it happens one day.
Information