[GK3]

https://armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_ru...e_vignette

This is somewhat "old news", and it is unclear if we can trust it. The A-50 was always advertised to have this capability, but AFAIK there were no known examples of it's use. That is still true, as these press reports aren't exactly loaded with verifiable real-time data. However, this capability could be REALLY bad news for both the F-16 deployment and US air and cruise missile strikes against targets overwatched by A-50 aircraft and cooperating S-400 sites. 

The Russian S-400 SAMs have a very long range. This capability was initially provided to shoot down NATO AWACS aircraft and any B-1/B-52 aircraft stupid enough to be approaching at high altitude. However, this very long range is only very seldom useful in practice. No airstrike is going to approach an area containing S-400s at high altitude. They will just "tickle" the underside of the radar horizon on their flight inbound. Eventually the S-400 will "see" them, but only when they are relatively close to the S-400 and possibly within HARM range. In any case, the long range is wasted. You have a big, expensive missile with no place to go.

Most of the S-400 missiles (even to day) are SARAH, that is the target must be illuminated by the launcher. This is also true of the Patriot. While TVM may reduce the power level required of the illuminator, you still need one. Recognizing that the illuminator makes it easy for the target to know it is being attacked, the US developed "fire and forget" missiles for the Patriot and other anti-aircraft systems. The PAC-2 (and earlier) missiles are SARAH. The PAC-3/PAC-3 MSE are true radar homing (fire and forget). The Patriot doesn't need to "illuminate" the target. The Patriot uses the tracking radar to steer the PAC-3 "close enough" to the target. The missile then is commanded to "go active" and steers itself the rest of the way. The AMRAAM is of course the current "poster child" of this technology, but it is present in many other missile systems. The equivalent S-400 missiles are the 48N6E3 (SARAH) and the subsequent 9M96/9M96E2 (active radar homing). It appears that the vast majority of the S-400 missiles in the Russian inventory are 48N6E3.

The common limitation in both these missiles is that the tracking radar has to be able to "see" the target to be able to launch anything at all. If the tracking radar can see it, the illuminator can illuminate it. The advantage of not requiring an illuminator is very real, but what you can hit is not different. Aircraft and cruise missiles that stay below the radar horizon until the "last minute" are relatively safe from the S-400 (and Patriot). The US has the capability for an AWACS (and F-35) to command launch and guide a Patriot to the target using their ability to greatly increase their radar horizon by operating at 30,000 ft or more. The Patriot need not even be operating it's radar at all. The AWACS gets the PAC-3 "close enough" and lets the PAC-3 do the rest. Flying low doesn't help you if the AWACS can still see you (and it can :-). Obviously, this won't work with SARAH missiles.

The "big deal" in the cited article is that possibly Russia can do the same thing. Much worse, their missiles have significantly greater range than the Patriots. The mitigating circumstances are that 1) we don't know if it is true, 2) supposedly Russia didn't make many 9M96 missiles, and 3) we don't know if the data transfer to the missile was "automated". It may have required a voice transfer of data that somebody had to manually enter into the S-400 system. IOW, was it a demonstration of feasibility or an exercise of an existing capability.  No matter how one looks at it, this isn't "good".

Going off on a different tangent, I found this article which I find very interesting.  Strikes me as having a fair amount of truth in it.  I wonder what others think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world...a-war.html

[GK3]

https://armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_ru...e_vignette

This is somewhat "old news", and it is unclear if we can trust it. The A-50 was always advertised to have this capability, but AFAIK there were no known examples of it's use. That is still true, as these press reports aren't exactly loaded with verifiable real-time data. However, this capability could be REALLY bad news for both the F-16 deployment and US air and cruise missile strikes against targets overwatched by A-50 aircraft and cooperating S-400 sites. 

The Russian S-400 SAMs have a very long range. This capability was initially provided to shoot down NATO AWACS aircraft and any B-1/B-52 aircraft stupid enough to be approaching at high altitude. However, this very long range is only very seldom useful in practice. No airstrike is going to approach an area containing S-400s at high altitude. They will just "tickle" the underside of the radar horizon on their flight inbound. Eventually the S-400 will "see" them, but only when they are relatively close to the S-400 and possibly within HARM range. In any case, the long range is wasted. You have a big, expensive missile with no place to go.

Most of the S-400 missiles (even to day) are SARAH, that is the target must be illuminated by the launcher. This is also true of the Patriot. While TVM may reduce the power level required of the illuminator, you still need one. Recognizing that the illuminator makes it easy for the target to know it is being attacked, the US developed "fire and forget" missiles for the Patriot and other anti-aircraft systems. The PAC-2 (and earlier) missiles are SARAH. The PAC-3/PAC-3 MSE are true radar homing (fire and forget). The Patriot doesn't need to "illuminate" the target. The Patriot uses the tracking radar to steer the PAC-3 "close enough" to the target. The missile then is commanded to "go active" and steers itself the rest of the way. The AMRAAM is of course the current "poster child" of this technology, but it is present in many other missile systems. The equivalent S-400 missiles are the 48N6E3 (SARAH) and the subsequent 9M96/9M96E2 (active radar homing). It appears that the vast majority of the S-400 missiles in the Russian inventory are 48N6E3.

The common limitation in both these missiles is that the tracking radar has to be able to "see" the target to be able to launch anything at all. If the tracking radar can see it, the illuminator can illuminate it. The advantage of not requiring an illuminator is very real, but what you can hit is not different. Aircraft and cruise missiles that stay below the radar horizon until the "last minute" are relatively safe from the S-400 (and Patriot). The US has the capability for an AWACS (and F-35) to command launch and guide a Patriot to the target using their ability to greatly increase their radar horizon by operating at 30,000 ft or more. The Patriot need not even be operating it's radar at all. The AWACS gets the PAC-3 "close enough" and lets the PAC-3 do the rest. Flying low doesn't help you if the AWACS can still see you (and it can :-). Obviously, this won't work with SARAH missiles.

The "big deal" in the cited article is that possibly Russia can do the same thing. Much worse, their missiles have significantly greater range than the Patriots. The mitigating circumstances are that 1) we don't know if it is true, 2) supposedly Russia didn't make many 9M96 missiles, and 3) we don't know if the data transfer to the missile was "automated". It may have required a voice transfer of data that somebody had to manually enter into the S-400 system. IOW, was it a demonstration of feasibility or an exercise of an existing capability.  No matter how one looks at it, this isn't "good".

Going off on a different tangent, I found this article which I find very interesting.  Strikes me as having a fair amount of truth in it.  I wonder what others think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world...a-war.html