@SkyFoxAira Well, granted you can endlessly dissect and elaborate in detail all the intricacies of air defense, but that wasnt his point in this video. The point was to explain what SEAD is and he did a decent job of giving a quick simplified idea about it to those who dont know better, without making any major mistakes or showing a blatant bias. And at the very least he spent the 5 minutes needed to get some basic info right, which is a lot more than most other defense channels will do. Hence me giving him credit for it. The specific layout of ground based air defense systems is irrelevant and he does mention they overlap and are all part of an integrated network. ECCM is also mentioned.
@@mindsmirror While not false its not mentioning the capability of a S-300 system to work as a radar array. As they constantly exchange their radar data any command section know what the other see. Radar arrays are nasty, you have to take out all or you'll be shot down anyway...
Do a video on the Bosnian guy that shot down the NATO/ us pilot over Bosnia by turning his SAM radar on and off to avoid detection but was still able to predict the pilots course. LEGENDARY
No air war expert here but here is one approach or might be a dumb approach, but heck for the sake of discussion: Mount a cheap radar of Mig-21 on half a high mile post looking 360 degrees. These radars can see good 30 kms and will know an incoming cruise or ARM missile. Feed this information to CIWS batteries which give a nice welcome to the missile plugging it with few dozens of 20mm bullets. However, HARM 88 is a mach 2 missile moving at half km per second, which can be difficult to handle so would need few of CIWS firing on the same target.
AGM-88E AARGM (HARM) has a multi-mode seeker as countermeasure if the opponent's ground radar system shuts down its activity to avoid an incoming missile.
if I was to set up an umbrella using SAMs I would line them up as follows from short to long distance manpads stinger, Pantsir1, BUK m1m2, S200,s300,s400 Triumph, S500 Prometheus. I would line modified Katyusha batteries to attack the enemies closest ally to me.
Incorrect. Integrated S-75 sites did not just switch off radars during sead attacks, they blinked radars for guidance hand off capability. Such guidance was not accurate enough to assure reliable tracking, but it prevented sead missions from employing its stand off capability. In effect it was a stand off, with S-75 sites not willing to waste missiles, and WW not being able to track any given radar long enough to assure a strike. Overwhelming majority of successful air strikes on S-75 sites were conducted by low altitude attacks, that's why so many of the attacking aircraft were downed by AA fire rather then SAM fire. The very few successful sead strikes on S-75 sites were conducted against isolated S-75 sites that were manned by Vietnamese crews, while sites manned by Soviet crews did not suffer such losses. There is a reason as to why statistics of missile launches per target strike ratio varies so drastically between Soviet and Vietnamese crews. Soviet SAM systems did not become mobile due to sead attacks, they evolved into integrating mobility through implementation of higher order communication capability between command station, radar station and launchers. The author of this video does not know the basic organizational structure of Soviet SAM systems, specifically National Air Defense vs PVO defense. S-75 Dvina was designed as a semi-mobile system for National Air Defense, therefore its primary requirement was a robust, hard data link for deployment at prepared defense sites. Soviet mobile SAM systems were designed for PVO forces, for deployment at unprepared sites wherever ground forces required protection. This video is misleading and factually incorrect. ausairpower.net/APA-S-75-Volkhov.html www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pvo-sv.htm
i’ve always thought that portable military radars are only good for war, i was wrong. when super typhoon haiyan/yolanda hit leyte in the philippines, US military portable radars were deployed in leyte to help humanitarian planes land since the airport and its facilities were destroyed by the typhoon. i’m quite certain the radar that was deployed was a part of the patriot missile system. so it has humanitarian purposes too. now that was put into good use...
It is true that before doing any decision related to military operations in kashmir, the issue of SEAD has to be thought out properly and in detail. It would depend upon SAMs deployed around each target but in general the best solution is decoys of two types. Either towed decoys or air launched radar decoys. The later are practically cruise missiles but with changes to look like a fighter jet on radar scope. The RAAD, if it is something real, can be used as an air-launched radar decoy. Or dedicated systems can be imported too. The best thing to do is of course to use retired aircraft as remote-controlled decoys. They can be launched on the intended target a few seconds or minutes ago the real strike. But there is no cheap or dumb solution to SEAD, otherwise, no one would purchase SAMs. Anti-radiation missiles or even standoff air to ground munitions can also play a good role in SEAD. But for Pakistan, the solution is gunship helicopters. Gunships have to be sent a few minutes ago the fighters of Air Force. Due to their slow speed and low altitude flight, they can precisely located and destroy air defences. AH-64 Apaches did the same thing in the opening hours of Operation Desert Storm over Iraq in 1991.
@8:10 the communications sites that you have shown are narrow beam emission type sites multichannel LOS UHF High and Single channel Tac SAT. it is unlikely that a missile will pick them up unless it is very close.
The ratiation missiles will go to the last place the radar was active. Js also these missles are extremely fast so they would only have a matter of seconds maybe 3 min at most to pack up and leave wich most of these radars take upwards of 4 min to do. Js
Before the advent of modern guided weapon, there's no such thing as accurate high altitude bombing, even with the best bomb sight. Also, you forget to add another less well known type of SEAD weapon, the Tactical Ballistic Missile. Iskander and Tochka missile are known to be able to home in on radio emission. The MLRS and HIMARS can saturate an area with hundreds of cluster munitions. So when couple with ESM system, it can act as a SEAD weapon. With the speed of the ballistic missile, it can engage target almost in real time, compare to cruise missile.
Precision high altitude bombing was first accomplished during WWII by the U.S. and British. The advent of the Norden bombsight and the ability to operate at night over Germany hastened the defeat of the Nazi war machine.
@@spydude38 It was called precision bombing, since tests had shown a relatively high possible precision with the norden sight , but the norden bombsight was never precise in actual combat operations. This was mainly because the altitudes were way higher then was expected. In my neighbouring town of Mortsel for example there was a small factory producing some Stuka parts. The US decided so bomb it with a total of 84 planes, only four boms hit the target, the rest landed on the town, mostly on the school close to the factory. This resulted in more then 250 belgian casualties, with many schoolchildren amongs them. This is just one example, but these kind of results was more the rule then exception.
the us Navy needs to put a small video screen in the jet plane to be able to look back that way the pilot doesn't have to trun his head to look back and a camera In the back of the jet plane
@@CovertCabal They really do, especially from that angle where the size difference is not apparent. The easiest distinguishing feature is the HARM has a double delta forward fin, whereas the Shrike has the basic delta of its AIM-7 lineage.
As we speak Orbital ATK is developing a new generation of anti radiation missile - AARGM. It will have much longer range, advanced electronics and, what's it's biggest capability, it will fit inside the F-35's weapons bay. Imagine those Russian school boys manning the S-400 battery knowing that the the F-35 is coming to get you with a missile whose range is well beyond the 150 km of the AGM-88E AARGM it's replacing.. Ivan is scared..
If you made a video like this without trying to cater to those deficient in attention, by laying the "excitement" music underneath it would honestly be better. Those viewers deficient in attention are not your hardcore audience, it is us, who are genuinely interested in what you have to say and find this super interesting. Just a suggestion....
Can we get a better name than “COVERT CABAL” ??? For the average person who understands words ( I know it’s like 30%) it sounds like, the “ Tin Foil Hat “ !!! Just saying...
@@StoutProper Radiation. Radar waves are a type of radiation, anything on the electromagnetic (E.g: Infrared, Microwaves, Ultraviolet, Visible light, 5G towers, AM/FM Radio, Radar) is a type of radiation. the type of radiation that can actually cause cancer and cause radiation poisoning is called "ionizing radiation", 90% of the time someone says radiation, they mean ionizing radiation, but the actual term "Radiation" its much broader. so Anti-Radiation-Missiles are probably optimized for radars in general, but could probably even be used to target enemy communications like radios.
Drachinifel switched away from using a synthesizer recently and his channel exploded. A youtube channel may offer quality content but most people aren't going to take it seriously or even enjoy watching it if it's using a synthesizer.
@@tibchy144 Synthesizer can be pretty distraction and for some non-native speakers, hard to understand. You bring a good counter-arguments but I think it is understandable as to why such channels aren't as well liked.
I mean, you are yeeting missiles, drones, at a SAM that is yeeting radar waves that yeets a missile when the radar waves are yeeted back from an aircraft that is yeeting air to move.
Just imagine, eventually there's going to be a president to enter office who was young enough when yeet was super mainstream. So we may actually get a pres who yells "YEEEEEET" at the start of ww3
Jet Guys is right though. There is a lot of interesting theory on BVR but not a lot of practical experience. It just has not been done much in actual combat. It looks pretty good on paper and in testing but no one really knows how effective it will be. Thank god we have never put the doctrines of the US and Russia to the test yet, but as of now they are the 2 primary doctrines. So far the US has gone primarily with a single missile type and using it in multiples to ensure kills. 1 is OK, 2 better, 3 if it absolutely has to die. Since the seekers are all the same type and software 3 is your 99% kill rate with very good missiles. 2 missiles is about a 92% kill rate and one drops you to something like 75% assuming best performance (i am being really generous, weapons like the AIM-120D do not have a 75% success rate). Anything you do that degrades a single AIM-120D's accuracy is likely to be effective against the others in a volley which goes a long way to degrading performance against sophisticated opponents. But... it means uniform hard points and shapes that can easily be planned around in aircraft development (think internal bays on a stealth aircraft). Russian doctrine is different. They use a wide variety of seekers with different software suites which they use in in groups of 3 to 4. They think, in testing, they have a much better kill ratio against modern counter measures this way. Some of the seekers are for instance designed to home in on the electronic jamming you would want to use against a radar guided seeker in the same volley. Disadvantages are they are not uniform in size, different range, and some times have very specific limitations. Some of this has evened out over the years. It also means your average Flanker can be configured to carry 8 to 12 BVR missiles fired in groups of 3 or 4. This becomes expensive fast. This is just the basics of doctrine but no one really knows if any of it works and there is a lot more going on than just what I outlined. Pretty much all of it is theory. We know much more about modern SAM systems and how effective they are than we know about AAM's and that is still not that much. Honestly I could tell you more about the difficulties that probably face modern stealth aircraft penetrating a 1st world integrated defense grid than I can tell you about the effectiveness of modern 1st world air to air combat. It is all just theory.
@jet guy Well, I do agree BVR kills are rare. But does that mean BVR tactics are bad/not working? Even if you don't kill hat the target that approaches you from 30+ km, you force it to go defensive. That gives you time and allows you to work on your position and attack. And it puts stress on your enemies. So I still see it as valuable.
@@randysearle2702 You're speaking about 10:40, did you really think he was talking about this very video and not, maybe another one he did? Way to miss the point. That video is /watch?v=fBLHZwEXKeA btw.
@@randysearle2702 The reason he says he is not going to bother going into how this is done is because he made another video that goes into detail on how it is done. And yeah, of course an 18 minute video is not going to make anybody an expert in the subject, people are not stupid. That would be like watching an 18 minute video on say how microprocessors work and then you saying that it doesn't make you an expert on microprocessor design.
@@Quantum-Bullet the arms industry is a leech, tolerated by the nation it saps strength from, at great expense, for the fear of a day it will need the poison the monster provides.
When discussing the AGM-88, remember that the E version has a multi mode seeker to enable it to hit non emitters. It also has a point to point GPS/INS mode for near precision vs time critical fixed or semi mobile targets. The latter capability I believe was first added to.the last pre AARGM HARM variant. Near precision with an air burst frag warhead of that size would work well against SAM sites, comms facilities, TBM launchers etc.
It's so funny to hear these intricate explanations of the capabilities of the Russian military with the hindsight being 20/20 and all. Russian advanced this, Russian world class leading that, with a specific emphasis on their advanced SAM systems that form the best IADS in the world.. Yeah right, Russia also has the world's second most powerful air force, their Army is second to none giving their advanced tanks and artillery support. And let us not forget the completely revamped command%control system pushed by the new generation of Russian professional soldiers who are led by the genius of hybrid warfare - general Gerasimov himself..... LOL... Russia will remain the world's laughing stock for a generation or two....
They were called sirens. You better cover your eyes and put wax in your ears. You look at them for too long and you are lost. Weakness will make you an easy target for some Ivan.:)
that was an extremely informative update. i'd say the pendulum favors the defenders now. fast, stealthy UAVs being the equalizer to be pushed later. never mind; the nuclear danger is all-encompassing.
The antiradar missiles came before the Wild Weasels and where carried on regular aircraft. The Wild Weasels came about when it was realized specialist units where needed for SEAD as well.
Anti-radar weapons were developed by Nazi Germany. Gliders, not missiles. But same principle - lock on to the radar, home on emissions. The snag with Shrike was that it had to be preset to a particular radio band before take off. Electronics were bulky in those days.
@@PATTHECATMCD : Not a real problem. EVERYBODY uses standard radar bands. All you need to know is what kind of radar you are attacking. ELINT can tell you that.
@@johnc8910 it's a different set of problems now with concepts like LPI, FH and synthetic aperture scannaed arrays. It was a problem in the time period that was raised (initial introduction of Wild Weasel specialist SEAD aircraft).
you didn't mention the use of decoys to protect against ARMs wich is the use of generally 3 emitters wich confuses the ARM and allows for the continuous use of the radar system
@@johnc8910 But they exist, just like how missile-drones that mimic aircrafts, there are small emitters mimicking radars, SAM, and communication sites. Of course they are going to need to be sophisticated to distract a sophisticated opponent
@@johnc8910 Yugoslav Army used (modified?) microwave ovens as decoys in 1999 NATO aggression on Yugoslavia. Radars would be turned on for only 10 seconds and then microwave in close proximity of radar vehicle would be turned on to redirect any radiation missiles. If has been 20 years ago, so I guess radiation missiles evolved beyond that.
Countries like America and Israel now posses missiles with loitering capabilities that can confirm a target before a final supersonic dive to take it out
12:30 *the patriot is able to engage at very long ranges, ver small targets* lmao who would win: 200$ drone or 9 Million dollar missile (hint, this missile won)
Easily the best channel for anything about military. Love that you don't use some text-to-speech program and research before you post videos. I hope more people notice your channel.
It takes half a decade and a heap of money to teach a combat pilot. It costs several tons of gold to buy a combat airplane. Even if the costs do not bankrupt a nation (which they may), no one can afford to loose the pilots in any numbers, and what is worse, to the robots, what these rockets and systems are, in principle. The obvious way out are the combat drones, but if autonomous, they are going to be very stupid indeed, compared with a human pilot. Forget the AI stories. AI can only make what is abyssimally stupid, stupid only. The task of shooting down planes can be automated much more easily than a task of flying a combat aircraft with all of its multiple missions and situations in which to fight. Conclusion. I would prefer not being anywhere around in a modern all out war, and a fighter plane cockpit would be one of the worst places to occupy. Best idea? No war.
daseladi well drones will most likely remain piloted remotely, not controlled through AI. Ideas i’ve heard proposed for the future possibility of the aerial battle field would be to have one human pilot in lead of a flight of drone pilots. It’s much more ethically suitable in which there is a human out in the field having a more emotional connection to possibly bombing someone. It also, in the case you mentioned, allows for the drone planes to be disposable through many unique strategies. But it’s crazy to me that just taking out one aircraft is a huge detriment to a countries defense capabilities through cost, time, and moral. Two major powers facing each other is almost unpredictable today, it’ll be scary to take to the skies in a major war for sure.
A picture of US president in every fucking govt office in US - "perfectly normal, nothing to see here. Patriotism, yay!" A picture of the Queen EVERYWHERE in the Commonwealth - "duh?" A picture of Russian president in a Russian govt office - "LOL! Cult of Putin!"
A very nice video. Thanks for putting this together. However you have missed a couple of key points about this whole cat and mouse business between AD and SEAD . Firstly a modern military can HIT BACK at your launch platforms as well. I'm not just talking about shooting back at the aircraft that's launched the HARM BUT shooting at the airfield or AC where the plane took off from. Secondly the defender can use decoys to lure the anti-radiation missiles away. Also I note you mentioned Libya and Iraq's IADS. While in theory they were integrated they were never intended to stop raids of hundreds of aircraft. Also there is a common misconception that the Iraqi AD was a Soviet system. Yes there were Soviet components but the actual IAD was built by the French and British. You can read more here: en.citizendium.org/wiki/Gulf_War,_Iraqi_integrated_air_defense_system
And most likely these systems had known weaknesses.... As Britain were part of the attacker it was most likely cake. To say the forces lost more planes due to mechanical failures and crashes in low altitude flights than actually against the air defenses.. I remember an order given that these kind of flights are suspended as no longer needed and too costly.
