Explaining Ground-Based Air Defense (GBAD) - Missiles & Guns vs Aircraft 

*Edit* I realize the transition between a generic 'IADS/IAMD' and the Russian Joint CIS Air Defense system is a bit awkward, a better comparison would have to explain IADS, and then mention examples like NATINADS and Объединённая система ПВО СНГ. #inb4

It depresses me when I hear people ignore the need for training, so I found this clear, informative and rational. Thank you

I've been interested in historical aviation since I was a kid in the 60s but I've really let my knowledge of the contemporary state of the art slide. This is a remarkable exposition of the current state of play. I've enjoyed your more historically focused videos but this really feels exceptional Chris. Once it becomes generally available I'll be recommending it to other folks I know who will be equally impressed. Hopefully they will subscribe or join the channel. I'm going to have to watch this again and this time I need to take notes. It's explained remarkably well, but there really is a lot to take in here. I must say that for someone whose native language is not English, you have an excellent way of breaking down and detailing complex material, supported by simple clear graphics and relevant footage that works really well for an English ear. Great work, thank you for this!

Hi there , I’m trained in the US Army Patriot missile system and The THAAD missile system , serving with 94AAMDC ( Pacific) and 10AAMDC (Europe) the need for good logistics can not be understated their is Usually an entire section of an Air defense unit devoted to maintenance , these systems can be very sensitive in more ways than one

Several decades ago, I was involved in a division level exercise. It was all computerized, but the officers and senior NCOs were involved. I was the ADA (Stinger plt) liaison to the battalion commander as a new Lt. I was surprised that most ADA assets were placed on Weapons Hold (do not fire unless fired upon) for the bulk of the exercise. That was because the higher ups managing the airspace over the battle space did not want us accidentally wishing friendly aircraft. I did not realize how complicated the situation was and how much coordination was involved.

Stingers nowadays don't actually use exclusively IR, but also UV, targeting the UV shadow of the target as seen against the UV canvas that is the sky. This allows them to pretty much ignore countermeasures after locking onto the target under normal circumstances. Flares can still disrupt the shooter attempting to lock onto the target, but that in turn is a passive process (doesn't send out any signal towards the target), so the target has no way of knowing it's being locked onto and will only receive a warning once it's too late with the missile already on its way. Might also add that training the use of Stinger is indeed extremely fast and you can fully train someone to shoot things down with one literally in a couple of minutes. Beyond that it's just practicing and learning more how to actually operate as a missile team/squad.

This and Chieftain's vid yesterday on handling video footage have been great additions to what the layman can pick up and use. The only problem is that it took an actual war for it to happen (and the general public to care)...

I'd love if you did a video on the history of SEAD and DEAD doctrine and tactics. Starting with WW1, how planes handled getting rid of pesky AA gunners, to WW2, and so on.

This video is very didactic, Chris. For people not familiar with modern air defense systems like me, this video explains lots of things. Many thanks.

By the way, thanks for making this.

Training to use the longer ranged systems takes weeks to months. Perhaps we should start bringing small teams of Ukrainians out of Ukraine and start training them. We are already 1 month into this. The sooner we start, the sooner the option might become available, at least putting the option on the table, rather than having it perpetually out of reach.

I have done some training on ultrasound testing of welds. The basic theory of sending out a signal and using the return to identify something. As an inspector I can say that there is a very large difference with operators and that training is extremely important. I am sure it takes a lot of training to be effective.

Amazing quality and quantity the past couple weeks. I appreciate that your still putting on a ton of work to research and get sources, while pushing out more content. Love your stuff, can’t wait to see more.

We have to give them something that can be learned (or is already learned) and effectively used in a matter of days or weeks, not months or years. Stinger MANPADS takes a day for Ukrainian civvies to learn and it doesn't require any logistics chain other than spare batteries and missiles. All the other, largely Soviet-designed air defense systems (S-300s, Buks, Tors, Osas, Shilkas, etc.) that NATO can scavenge in ex-Soviet NATO-member stocks or around the world should be sent as well; depending on the variant, the Ukrainians are already well-trained on it and have the logistics chain and maintenance knowhow. Chris is right about being realistic and practical about this. Those silly demands of some pundits for Patriots or Sky Dome or old Rapiers to be sent in don't take into account the time it takes to train on those systems and what has to go along with it. Unless our ground troops and support chain are included - which current policy disallows - those transfers will do little in theater.

Excellent Video Sir! I spent years working in British Army AD as initially a user and later a Warrant Officer Instructor / Advisor. Could not have explained the definition better myself. Well done.

This seems to support a triage based on learning curve; Soviet era systems that may be available in former Warsaw pact states and the black market; newer hand held systems that have short learning requirements and more complex systems*. Since this hierarchy also roughly follows cost the, most dense system would suggest frontloading the closest and cheapest systems, Soviet era and older NATO systems. *an interesting way the kearning curve might be shortened is one we may never see. Outside "volunteers" leading local teams operating complex systems.

Videos like this are the reason I keep coming back to this website! Fantastic in-depth analysis. Keep up the excellent work!

Fantastic, thoughtful content as usual! Loved the deep dive and the pains taken to illustrate the complexity of deploying and maintaining modern air defense systems!

That is the best video you have ever made in my opinion. Clear, concise and informative. No fluff and nothing but practical content. Keep up the good work. Give us more like that!!!!

This series continues to be excellent. Thanks for doing a quick explainer on all the complexities.

Thanks for this excellent video. A fast jet pilot once told me they are called missiles because they often miss. Your video explains the challenges of air defence very well.

Another through and well explained analysis of modern air combat (from the ground perspective), everyone should watch. I completely agree anyone (eg: the Ukrainians) need weeks of training on the latest mid-to-long range SAM systems to be able to use them, in short term replenishing old existing hardware they are familiar with is best policy. Long term, *starting now*, there must be a expedited training path to use the latest equipment. The Ukrainian war likely will continue for a very long time, months at least, and those obsolete systems will be consumed extremely quickly.

Very informative and well organized. Great presentation and delivery.

Outstanding video and presentation.

Thanks for taking time to collate & provide the data in this video , as you said there's no substitute for hands on training to get the best from any weapon system from a basic field knife to a fully operational Air defence grid , well put together.

This channel... Its sooo good! Thanks for another great video!

Good in-depth piece Chris, very impressive, you've done your homework. Thanks for the post.

Very informative, thank-you. A lot of input! Gives a lot of room for further studies... thanks too for the chapters on the video (even if I don't use them). I appreciate the work that you put into the content! Viele Grüsse 😉

Great video examining the multiple layers of air defenses. Your use of graphics to support your narration-which is very clear, by the way-is especially polished. Thanks very much! It’s kind of amazing that the first airplane flew (putt-putt-wheeze-putt-putt) only in 1903, but planes have advanced so far so fast that all this specialized weaponry’s needed to defend against them.

love your work and learned something new with MANPADS. "Ranges are guidelines" reminded me of a certain pirate movie franchise

Outstanding, concise, informed!! The best you have done!! Worth watching to the end.

Thanks Chris! Great video overview.

Awesome video! Thanks for putting this together. 👍

I trained at redstone arsenal! The amount of time and technical know how to operate these antiaricarft and anti missile systems was staggering! You are absolutely right training is key nuff said!

Great Video Chris!

An informative primer on Air Defense. Great work as always Chris.

Thank you for your effort in making these well presented and informative videos.

Bloody good video, exposition and graphic design.

As you’re the only military aviation channel I know that features such topics & features them honestly,congrats.

Excellent primer, thanks!

Truly excellent video essay. Succinct, informative, well researched and clearly explained…text book example of a great YT video. Immediate Sub and Like, well done. (Your English is superb as well btw).

30-40 years ago I was a Cactus/Crotale SAM platoon leader. Weapons have got more sophisticated, than the MIG 21's and 23's we had to deal with, but the basics probably still apply. Firstly it takes about 6 months to train an SAM radar operator, and 3 years to train a skilled operator. Training involves exercises with friendly jets are essential, which I would say is not feasible once a war starts within disputed airspace. Basically it is a bit like a navy, your have the assets you start the war with, and those you can capture. The primary air defense is the fighter interceptor controlled by an early warning radar system, which are hence the priority targets in the first few days of an attack. What is left after that has to deal with several threats, enemy jets and ground attack planes, low flying guided missiles (ballistic missiles are a separate issue), helicopters. Jet pilots tend to avoid ground mission profiles once a few missiles are shot at them from close range! Usually flying higher. The main effect of short range AAA and SAMs and manpads is to push the enemy to fly higher and into the range of other air defense assets. Deterrence is more effective and common than just shooting down aircraft. Once the initial formalities are over, mobility and ambush tactics come into play. Manpads and other mobile short range weapons then become important for ambushes. Helicopters are especially vulnerable, perhaps ten to twenty times more vulnerable than jets. Helicopters are also very vulnerable to long range artillery, which can destroy them on the ground. Artillery is alo an effective way of knocking out enemy short to medium range air defences. Long range SAMs are is a major deterance to air operations. Nowadays drones are quite prominent and offer their own challengers. Drone pilots typically prefer not to have more than three UAVs shot down before they scale back their activity over a defended area. Captured equipment i not immediately useable, mainly due to low serviceability rates and lack of trained personal to fix and operate them. We managed to capture Strelia missiles that were used by special force operators, behind enemy lines. We also captured a 9k33 Oca Sam-8 Gecko, but it took many month to translate the button witches and dials before performing a test firing in 1989. The missile however did not launch. The main issue is serviceability of the weapons, which requires support personal with even more specialized training. I would suggest a 33% serviceability rate is doing well. You cannot just pull old stock out of a warehouse, and expect them to be serviceable. Also there probably aren't even trained operators and technicians around anymore.

A very informative introduction to air defence.

Just exceptional Chris. You must be up for an award with this superb presentation.

Speaking in a very cynical way, and very cheeky, Western countries could make use of both the Western volunteers and private military companies, to help the Ukrainians use newer, Western air defense systems. If enough, trained, veteran men already are in or on their way to Ukraine, they could be sorted by the Ukrainians at the border into: trained in air defense systems, and which; and only just MANPADS trained. That could help use systems like Starstreak or Sky Sabre. They could make mixed units of Western-trained operators and future Ukrainian operators, for training on the go. The other way I would think is to use third countries, or indirect ways, to get funding, for the Ukrainians to "hire" private military companies with staff trained in this systems, to help "support" Ukrainian units manning this new systems, for "training" purposes. Both could be used at the same time, too. Another difficulty that nobody is mentioning is that the Ukrainians, given they are given the missiles, need reliable IFF systems for their own aircraft. That is one of the reasons quoted on why the Russians are not quite effective at CAS, or why they don't use as many smart munitions for CAS(besides their low stocks). Ukrainian aircraft, current and future, need good IFF, so the Ukrainians can fire more reliably and timely on aircraft. The Russians themselves seem a bit reluctant to shoot at everything that flies, because of the similarities in equipment, and are seen to use very low tech solutions, like the big painted Z on their vehicles. IFF is a relatively cheap and small piece of equipment that is way more valuable than it seems...

Excellent video, as always.

Great primer on Air Defence Systems! Sehr Gut Bismark!

Good stuff, keep it up.👍

Thorough and detailed analysis making a complex, multi-level Defensive doctrine into easily-understood, common sense. Extremely professional graphics adds a lot!

That an excellent show of knowledge. Thank you 👍

Thank you for an enlightening and informative overview of a complex topic. I think you should consider doing a weekly bulletin on the Ukrainian crisis for those of us who don't have your technical knowledge?

Thanks! Good thoughtful analysis!

Excellent presentation!

Yes, excellent communication of complex topic. Thank you

Excellent as always.

Ukraine military just doesn't have the training cycles immediately available to become proficient on complex NATO ADS. On the other hand, we just don't know how long Russia's Ukraine invasion will last, and whether the Ukraine military will be operating in purely guerilla mode if the stalemate extends into the near future. Should a subgroup of Ukraine military start training on larger, longer-range systems now, or focus completely on short-range MANPADS for immediate success and to deny Russia's air force the CAS role? I don't know. My crystal ball seems to have malfunctioned.

Thank you. Excellent analysis and summary.

Clear concise and very informative

Excellent video!

Excellent info!

Finally a person talking about this that actually has a clue

Well done. This is the best overview of air defense that I have heard. The only thing you did not cover was that Home on Jam works both ways, examples are HARM and AMRAM missiles.

That was fantastic, thank you!

Excellent work.

You are among the few channels that I watch and always look forward to your informative videos. I see you did not include the British Army Sky Sabre ( CAMM ) system. It uses the Army version to the Sea Raptor ) It is replacing the Rapier Missile.

Nice, very comprehensive.

A very good discussion on air defense, very good, thanks 😎

An excellent video. Very educational

Doesn’t the contrail of a low altitude SAM act as a deterrent by itself? You don’t necessarily have to bring down an enemy aircraft, as long as you disrupt or abort their attack.

Very well done.

Thank you for the information.

The material on this channel is of top tier.

Very good & timely story.

Good analysis and presentation. Makes what appears on mass media almost meaningless.

Thank you for this. A great & infortamite video

Good stuff!

"... and finally I will give a practical example of their deployment." I could hardly wait until "finally" came; what better finale than the prospect of Chris firing a Stinger through his skylight?

Super analysis

I honestly don't get it why systems by Western countries like the Adats and Roland were discontinued. So much potential...

Chris you are indeed a real Pro!

Excellent job on your presentation you have good grasp on the the weapons being used by the different nations. SFC David o Darling U.S. Army Retired

All of these integrated air defence systems rely upon interconnection using some sort of electromagnetic transmission. As the data stream becomes more complex, it seems to me that they would be very susceptible to jamming/spoofing/hacking. In a nuclear environment, you'd wonder if they'd operate at all after being exposed to electromagnetic shock. I could see something like a very low yield nuclear device that pumps out a lot of gamma and not much else exploded up in the high atmosphere, not even targeting personal or property shutting down a country's air defences in a second.

All these manpads etc,when this war ends and it will how can all these systems be accounted for,they could pose a serious threat to civilian aviation if they fall into the wrong hands I would think

Fantastic Infos!!!

Great show you covered more than I knew about the available missile systems. We used the Dusters (2-40mm POM-POMs on a track) for perimeter defense in our larger Recon support or fixed firebased, boy were they effective. I agree if we give Ukraine help it should be something they can use now, for instance the 300 systems the baltic and a couple of other NATO countries have. Patriots would be cool but not if they just sat there and no one could operate them. enjoy your presentations.

High quality education as always.

Well that answered a lot of questions I had. Should be required viewing for some of our journalists.

Great video as always Chris. One thing I would add is that NATO still has medium range AA defenses in use namely in the form of relatively new NASAMS 2 & 3 batteries.

Old air defender here, blowpipe, javelin, and S15. Great vid lots of info, shared to my old Bty webpage. Thanks for all your work. Slava Ukraine.

Thanks for this great explaination of modern day Air defense I really liked theexplanation of the US army air defsne command structture! Which another thing about sending anything bigger then MANPADS is geting in country then setting it up.

Perhaps it's worth to remember that the soviet union send the latest and greatest of SAMs, to it's Arab allies. Plus: used with some success (particularly at the begining of the Yom Kipur war) Minuses: excessive expenditure of Missiles by ill trained Arab operaters Development of countermessures by the Israelis (shared with the West) Capture of top secret soviet equipment (to be studied by western developers)

I'm a old Army Stinger gunner and seeing stingers in war us satisfying to watch

Good, interesting stuff.

Biz...Thank you so much for diving into this complicated subject. It sounds simple when politicians imply their use in combat...but truly a complicated deployment. No simple or easy solutions for the Ukraine unfortunately. Thanks Bizmark.

Great explanatory video, for completeness' sake though when explaining the components of a SAM (or missile in general), the electronics controlling the whole thing should be taken into account. That part usually takes up quite a lot of room next to the warhead. Otherwise very well done and a lot of great footage!

Pretty much spot on across the board.

This is good stuff

You might want to have a look at the Norwegian NAMAS system it's very flexible also it's in the short/medium/ and medium+ range. Also it can use both IR and radar guided missiles.

THIS WAS RIVETING GREAT VIDEO

Thx, great!