April 19, 2019 "Voennoye Obozreniye" published an article "Breakthrough of air defense by exceeding its capabilities to intercept targets: solutions" … The author, Andrei Mitrofanov, raised an extremely important and very interesting topic and highlighted a problem that in the very near future will "drive" classic air defense systems to a dead end. We are talking about the so-called "saturating" attack, when the number of targets (until we argue, real or real and false together) significantly exceeds the fire performance of the defensive air defense systems.
Unfortunately, having raised the problem and very carefully pointed out its various aspects, the author went "in the wrong place" in search of an answer to the question of how to solve this problem.
Let's figure it out.
Saturation of the defender's fire system with such a number of targets that he cannot technically hit is a very old tactical technique, and not only in air warfare. This technique requires the use of a large number of forces and means in the attack, but on the other hand it gives a lot: since the defender cannot destroy all the targets, then his defeat becomes not a very difficult matter - of course, if the defender's capabilities are calculated correctly.
This applies to the maximum extent to modern air defense, which is built around anti-aircraft guided missiles. It should be understood that in fact we are dealing with two different problems.
The first of them is the use of false targets to disguise real air attack weapons (AHN).
The most famous false target to date to cover strike aircraft and guided missiles from air defense systems is the American MALD. One US Air Force attack aircraft in an attack can carry 12 or more of these missiles, which will divert ground-based air defense fire onto itself. Coupled with the jamming aircraft that the Americans accompany the strike groups, and adjusted for the number of aircraft in the strike group (20-50), the problem of hitting all targets detected by the air defense system is unsolvable - at least because of the limited ammunition load, which is good the author writes.
Specialists and non-specialists also discuss the idea of selection of false targets. In any case, the signature of a decoy target and a real airborne weapon (AAS) will be different. The relatively small distance at which the battle is being conducted (tens of kilometers) may allow, under certain conditions, this signature to be counted.
However, this is, firstly, a big question, and secondly, the development of missiles - false targets will sooner or later lead to indistinguishability of their signatures with those of real air defense systems or ASPs (especially when it comes to the destruction of the ASP - bombs or missiles) … And thirdly, and this is the most important thing, if someday the possibility of such a selection is realized, then the problem of saturating air defense attacks will simply turn into another form.
So, problem number two - air defense can ONLY be saturated with the help of ASP, without false targets. Then all or almost all of the goals will be real, and they will need to be destroyed or all by interference, without exception.
How many are we talking about?
Well, let's count.
Let's say we have an attacking group of 22 F-15E aircraft, each of which carries 20 GBU-53 / B small gliding bombs, a distraction group consisting of six of the same Strike Needles, each carrying 12 MALD decoys, and air defense suppression group of eight F-16CJ armed with a pair of PRR AGM-88 HARM. Since even for such a group an air defense breakthrough is not guaranteed, at the same time another 10 F-15Es are struck at the object with the help of AGM-154 gliding bombs, dropped from a great height, in the amount of 2 units per aircraft.
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 missiles, which will allow the F-16CJ hiding at low altitudes to release their 16 missile defense systems, which should destroy the long-range air defense radar that worked on the AGM-154 and leave only the anti-aircraft cover systems, on which 440 gliding bombs will be dropped from the F-15E, and so that the surviving long-range air defense systems and short-range air defense systems / ZRAK / ZAK do not hit the main strike group, 72 MALD decoys are used.
Let's not fantasize about how this fight ended. It is better to calculate how many targets need to be "knocked down" by the attacked air defense system.
Aircraft - 46.
PRR - 16.
There are 72 false targets.
Gliding bombs AGM-154 - 20.
Planning bombs GBU-53 / B - 440.
In total - 594 targets.
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 Osirak (the one that the Israelis did not finish off at the time) by the US Air Force in 1991 - there were 32 attack aircraft in the attacking group and 43 support aircraft (escort interceptors, jammers and PRR carriers, refuellers). This is the norm for attacking a more or less fortified object.
Even if we remove everything from the scheme, except for the last wave of small bombs, and even if we assume that we bring down 1, 5 missiles to one bomb, then the number of missiles in the defensive air defense formation and the channeling of air defense systems should be simply fantastic. And even more fantastic will be their price - no matter how cheap small-sized missiles are, the anti-aircraft guns themselves do not belong to cheap equipment. Will our budget "pull" hundreds of new air defense systems and thousands of disposable anti-aircraft missiles? The answer is obvious.
At sea, the problem is even more acute: there it is impossible either to hide the parameters of air defense systems from the enemy (they are known for each type of ship), or to replenish the ammunition load of naval air defense systems between attacks. And the American consumption rates for the destruction of naval strike groups at the beginning of the eighties were numbered in dozens of missiles in the first attacking wave, with the task of DIFFERENTLY blocking the fire performance of Soviet naval air defense systems.
However, the Americans are in a similar position. No matter how they improve the electronics and computers of their AEGISs, their "ceiling" for fire performance does not change, it is determined by the Mk.41 launcher and its method of connecting to the ship's CIUS and is 0.5 anti-aircraft missiles per second. Multiplying this by the number of URO ships in the order, we get a limit in terms of fire performance, which, on the current ships, they will not be able to step over.
Nothing prevents the allocation of the number of anti-ship missiles for the attack, just BOTH to cover this fire performance.
To summarize: any air defense is "saturated" until it loses its ability to hit targets and is immediately destroyed. The attacking side will ALWAYS be able to use more ASP than the defender has anti-aircraft missiles. It is impossible to repel such attacks with missiles using existing methods.
But this does not mean at all that the "sword" defeated the "shield".
Our good old friends come to our aid - 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 gun is versatile and can shoot at air targets. The advent of guided projectiles or projectiles with programmable detonation dramatically expands their combat capabilities. At the same time, if we talk about systems with a caliber of 57-76 mm, then they are also quite fast-firing.
For example, our legendary and completely "land" S-60, the "heroine" of the Vietnam War, is firing.
What is so special about this caliber? The fact that, on the one hand, it is possible to make a projectile with programmable detonation in it, and on the other hand, to provide a high rate of fire, significantly exceeding one shot per second.
And this is the solution: in response to a hail of small bombs, send them a wave of anti-aircraft shells, which are cheap compared to missiles, and hang a "steel wall" in the path of the incoming ASP. Today many countries are working on such projects. Here is a "top" foreign example to strive for.
However, we are interested in solutions that are compatible with our realities, and there are such solutions.
We are looking at this gun module from Slovenian Valhalla Turrets. A familiar trunk, isn't it? So. This is our S-60, but on an autonomous unmanned turret, with an optoelectronic guidance system, with a coaxial machine gun and rockets for salvo firing. It is not visible from the outside, but the "cassette" with 4 shells on this installation has been replaced with a 92-round magazine. The novelty was named "Desert Spider". Details here.
Let's take a slightly more extreme example - our 100-mm anti-aircraft gun KS-19, which also fought with the Americans. According to some sources, the last time such a gun shot down a combat aircraft was during Desert Storm, and it was a Tornado fighter-bomber at an altitude of 6,700 meters.
Here's what they did with this weapon in Iran:
It is worth noting that in calibers 76 and more millimeters, it is possible to create not only a projectile with programmable detonation, but also a controlled projectile, which is in no way inferior in its effectiveness to the "Armor" "Nail". But due to the lack of a first stage with a much cheaper engine.
It is worth noting that domestically produced naval guns have achieved both a high rate of fire and the ability to fire at air targets.
This is a 76 mm AK-176.
And this is a 100-mm A-190 from the Boyky corvette
Now we count. Battery - 4 guns, with a rate of fire of at least 60 rounds per minute (it must be understood that the practical rate of fire is lower than the technical one), they will shoot 240 rounds at the enemy. If these are 76-100 mm cannons, then all of them can be controlled. If 57 mm, then with a remote gust, but there it is worth talking about about 400 shells per minute.
And two batteries of the same 100 millimeter marks are 480 guided anti-aircraft shells per minute.
This is the solution. Not an insane increase in the number of TPKs with missiles on air defense systems, in an attempt to grasp the immense (although the ammunition must be increased within reasonable limits). A combination of an automatic anti-aircraft gun of medium or large caliber with a guided anti-aircraft projectile and / or a projectile with programmable detonation.
And here we have good news. Russia is the world leader in technologies for creating such weapons. At least while some are building experimental models with our own old 57-mm cannon, we have an almost ready-made combat vehicle.
So, the combat vehicle, born within the framework of the Derivation-Air Defense ROC, is a self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery system with a 2S38 combat vehicle.
This is an automatic anti-aircraft gun with a caliber of 57 mm, mounted on the BMP-3 chassis. Its characteristic feature is only passive, non-radiating guidance systems. Finding such a machine is many times more difficult than any air defense system.
Brief characteristics:
The maximum range of damage is 6 km.
The maximum height of the defeat is 4.5 km.
Rate of fire - 120 rounds per minute.
Full ammunition - 148 rounds.
The vertical guidance angle is 5 degrees / +75 degrees.
The horizontal guidance angle is 360 degrees.
The maximum speed of targets hit is 500 m / s.
Calculation - 3 people.
From blog "Center AST".
The 2S38 combat vehicle is equipped with an optical-electronic system for detecting and aiming the OES OP, developed by the Minsk-based Peleng OJSC. It allows for 360-degree panoramic observation of the terrain, as well as for a sector view. The detection range through one of the television channels of a small unmanned aerial vehicle of the Bird Eye 400 type in the survey mode is declared at 700 m, in the narrow field of view mode - 4900 m. The A-10 attack aircraft is detected in the first mode already at a distance of 6400 m, and in the second - at 12,300 m. The thermal imaging channel allows detecting targets with a size of 2, 3 x 2, 3 m with a probability of 80% at a distance of 10,000 m and recognizing them at a distance of 4,000 m.
Anti-aircraft fire control system manufactured by JSC "Peleng" (Belarus).
This is such a correct line of thought that you want to jump in and clap your hands with joy for our ground forces. It remains only to wait for the projectile with programmable detonation and the final fine-tuning of the machine according to the test results.
Of course, we also need a machine for jamming in the radar, infrared and optical ranges. It is necessary to ensure the firing of the battery and the battalion with the distribution of targets between the guns. It is necessary to ensure coordination with the air defense system and work out joint use. But even without this new art. the system is a giant breakthrough step forward in the right direction. Although, of course, we cannot relax.
And the Navy urgently needs to resolve the issue of guided anti-aircraft projectiles of 76, 100 and 130 mm calibers. And the work of naval guns in the collective air defense mode. It is also worth evaluating the correctness of the transition to one gun mount on the bow for all classes of ships - it is possible that on large ships it is worth considering a return to a two-turret 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 sagacity of someone in the ground forces, Russia has a very good start for the era of super-massive air strikes. It should be noted that it does not in any way cancel the anti-aircraft missile systems, it complements them. Occupying its own special niche. In the future, anti-aircraft missiles and the revived barreled anti-aircraft artillery will be used together.
It is necessary, however, to make a reservation.
Economically, our country is not that strong. And when betting on the latest system for a 57-mm projectile, one must understand: there will not be enough money for everything. Therefore, it is extremely important, simultaneously with the completion of the R&D "Derivation-Air Defense", to carry out work on the modernization of the stored S-60 in the image and likeness of the "Desert Spider", but without excesses such as a coaxial machine gun or missiles, but with the transfer to a chassis available in storage - KamAZ or Ural trucks and MTLB tracked tractors. There is still a lot of such equipment on conservation, and the "splicing" of the modernized 57-mm cannon and the chassis from the availability should save a lot of money for the country. And the money saved means more weapons and more defenses.
And of course, it is worth considering the issue of returning to service and large-caliber anti-aircraft guns with the creation of a specially guided projectile for them. As already mentioned, the 57 mm caliber allows you to make a projectile with programmable detonation, but does not allow you to make a full-fledged controlled one with a powerful explosive charge. 100mm caliber is another matter entirely. And Russia with its scientific and technical potential can do this much better than Iran.
We have all the trump cards in our hands, you just need to go with them competently.
Let's hope it happens one day.
