Why bother firing unguided SAMs?

[JRDelirious]

@Incubus

I wasn’t aware that SAMS have alternate guidance systems, do some have their own onboard radar that could ‘search’ for targets independently? While risky to friendly aircraft, this seems practical.

Generally, you don’t send up mass AAA or SAMs into the same space as you’re operating fighter cover. “Dumb” FLAK is essentially a minefield-in-the-air, just fill the space between two altitudes with exploding stuff, forcing the approaching bombers to either run the gauntlet or be funneled into the space where the fighters were waiting. If you have no fighters, you just flood the airspace over your high-value target with exploding stuff and hope for the best, at least it’s doing something. As mentioned, the “blind” SAM can still be programmed to just explode at X altitude and thus be an extreme-long-range flak-equivalent (and probably has that as the default “safe mode” if it finds itself blind after an aimed launch)

Depending on your army’s mix of SAMs and AAA you may have multiple targeting and homing systems (IR-homers and different kinds of radar passive and active homers) deployed, but it’s extremely unlikely to have radically different systems on one single missile. At best a “backup” on different frequencies, or a default subroutine that makes it programmed, rather than guided. The missiles with “active” radar acquisition/homing systems still require you to do a Target-ID and initialize before you let fly. With the IR homers, if you are willing to wait until the enemy’s close enough, you can acquire the target w/o radar, just with IR sensors.

[Loopydude]

From what I understand, unguided anything shot at a jet airplane is effectively straifing, whether the shooter think’s he’s aiming or not. Very few people can lead anywhere near well enough to score a hit at a moving aircraft…hell, some of these planes can outrun the bullets! I think antiaircraft guns since as far back as WWII had some sort of computer to assist with targeting, and even with sophisticated modern systems using radar tracking, etc., it’s high-tech guesswork, since the path of a maneuvering aircraft is impossible to predict with great accuracy. SAMs are of little or no advantage over AAAs without heat or radar guidance.

[Declan]

@Incubus

Like others have mentioned, there have been some situations where a city was under attack, and for one reason or another were unable to utilize the radar guidance for surface to air missiles. In these situations, the operators often just ‘fired from the hip’. The problem I see with this is that its like trying to hit a fly with a million dollar dart.

It was also the method used to shoot down the stealth fighter, while the Air Force contributed to it ,by flying in regular lanes , nite after nite , the serbs being the smart fellows they are , set up a box pattern with SA-2’s and voila , bunch of peasants the next day having a kodak moment with the wreckage.

Francais Gary Power and his U-2 recon aircraft , had a an engine flame out causing his jet to drop to sam range , but the soviets having a problem with the SA-2 , sent em up unguided.

Vietnam , during the bombing of Hanoi , the viets were being reduced to shooting up scores of SA-2’s , because they no longer had control of their electronic spectrum , by the third week. The bombing was so effective that the viets were just days away from surrendering.

I wasn’t aware that SAMS have alternate guidance systems, do some have their own onboard radar that could ‘search’ for targets independently? While risky to friendly aircraft, this seems practical.

In response to the second question , I don’t believe so. Usually the ADIZ people have interlocked and intergrated firing zones , so that below a certain altitude , say 20 thousand feet , its AAA , between 21 and 40 , it may be sam territory , and above that would be fighters. An independent sam, would probably not be wise.

As to alternate guidance , generally only a couple of models have had more than one guidance system, and so far thats been limited to the heavy soviet era surface to air missile systems. I think the closest thing that America has , is a Home on Jam capability.

Surface to air missile systems are supposed to be cheap , you keep all the expensive stuff on the ground ,and use the missile as a guided bullet.

Declan

[Declan]

@Kilt-wearin' man

HARM being one specific model - the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile used by the US and its allies (IIRC, the British use 'em too). ** It’s an air-launched anti-radar missile designed to take out radars used by air defenses, and will continue toward the last position of a radar it was tracking, even if that radar is switched off. ** Very effective, and another reason that SAMs get launched without radar guidance…better chance of going home in one piece for the SAM crew if they don’t turn the radar on.

The chinese military has taken this very seriously ,and have their airdefense networks linked up with fibre optic cables, so that when the search radar hands off the contact to the fire direction hub , it then routes the signal to a series of hopping radars ,that turn on and off , while keeping the contact in electronic sites.

It was one of the reasons that that Iraq was being bombed , just shortly before the war broke out, seems the chinese had sold the system to the Iraqi govt.

Declan

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

SAMs have two main kinds of guidance, radar guided and infrared (IR). The early SAMs such as the Russian-made SA-2, were radar guided, but rather than having the ability to home in on their targets after launch independently they depended upon the ground radar to maintain lock. If the ground radar was either destroyed or forced to shut down for self-preservation lock would be broken and the missile was therefore unguided. Chaff was also very effective. Countless numbers of systems like these are still in service.

Early IR SAMs had a major flaw- they were unable to maintain lock if spoofed with flares, launched into the sun, anything that could create enough heat to make it a more attractive source than an aircraft engine. Cooling the seeker head was more effective, but that cooling lasted only a short time, after which it became more or less an unguided rocket. Again, there are thousands of these types of SAMs.

Either one of these situations will result in what seems to be an “unguided” launch.

One other thing to consider: if you’re stooging along and you see a stream of tracers coming at you, you can judge the path of the rounds and evade appropriately. A missile is far more feared because upon launch it is presumed that it is guiding on you, therefore you have no choice but to perform an evasive maneuver. So by launching an unguided missile the enemy can make you move the aircraft AND give away your position to other weapons that are prepared to shoot you down. Expensive? Perhaps, but an old missile like an SA-2 is barely effective anyway, so using it as a decoy is an effective strategic gambit. Forcing you to break into barrage fire, killing your airspeed and more or less destroying your view of the tactical situation, is a very deadly strategy for your enemy.

More recent missiles are virtually impossible to evade. Against something like a Stinger you’re basically toast.

[Declan]

@Airman Doors

More recent missiles are virtually impossible to evade. Against something like a Stinger you’re basically toast.

Huh ,<nitpick>

If you had used the Ihawk , patriot , or Standard , I would have agreed ,but the Stinger’s max height is 12,500 feet and is pretty much a daylight weapons system at best.

Any airbreather below that altitude, and can be seen , your point is valid.

</nitpick>

Declan

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Declan

Huh ,<nitpick>

If you had used the Ihawk , patriot , or Standard , I would have agreed ,but the Stinger’s max height is 12,500 feet and is pretty much a daylight weapons system at best.

Any airbreather below that altitude, and can be seen , your point is valid.

</nitpick>

Declan

<nitpick>

The Stinger’s range is 12,500 feet, sure, but you have to realize that when your absolute max altitude is around 23,000 feet (as is the case with my C-130) and you’re being fired at from an altitude of 8-10,000 feet already (as in somewhere like Afghanistan), you’re well within range.

</nitpick>

If you’re within range of a Stinger, you’d better hope you see it from the moment it’s shot at you or that you can outrun it. Outrunning is not an option in a C-130.

I am a tactics instructor at my unit, and this is one of the discussions we regularly have. My little dissertataion is admittedly C-130 specific, but nonetheless applicable.

[Declan]

@Airman Doors

<nitpick>

The Stinger’s range is 12,500 feet, sure, but you have to realize that when your absolute max altitude is around 23,000 feet (as is the case with my C-130) and you’re being fired at from an altitude of 8-10,000 feet already** (as in somewhere like Afghanistan)**, you’re well within range.

</nitpick>.

bedtime for me

Is that the current nightmare , having one of the early model stingers fired at you , (or has it happened) or are you more likely to be engaged with Strela’s(sam-7’s , for the readers).

Thats my curiosity perking up

Obviously its your job so I can’t speak against it , only comparing it to C-130 herks that ran the guantlet at Khe san , going up against Strela’s , the bird was tough enough to soak up its fair share of hits.

Stay safe if your still making runs to A-stan.

Declan

[Brutus]

@RickJay

It sure would be a waste of money, which, I imagine, is why unguided SAMs don’t exist. I am unaware of the existence of such a device. Who is in the habit of firing SAMs without using their guidance systems?

Heh.

@Declan

Its a difference in Calibre

AA is basically anything from 50 calibre machine gun , up to the 40 mm Bofors

So its Anti-Aircraft

AAA is in the cannon range , so anything from 88 milimeters , which is the smallest I think to 130 mm which is the heaviest of the soviet guns.

So its Anti-Aircraft-Artillery

Declan

Hrmmm. I don’t think that is the difference.

AA=Anti Aircraft. From 7.62mm, to the KS-30 130mm system still in the Russian inventory, to PAC-3 Patriot SAMs, it describes a role rather than any technical specification. American forces use the acronym ‘AD’ (Air Defense) instead of AA. I don’t know, but I bet pilots still say ‘Ack Ack’.

AAA=Anti Aircraft Artillery. From 7.62mm to 100mm and beyond. It specifically describes ‘gun’ antiaircraft. A collection of ZU-23s would be described as AAA, just as would a gaggle of Chinese KS-19 100mm guns.

Vaguely and sorta related to the OP: The new version of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the D variant, will have a GPS uplink to allow it to be guided by AWACS radar for most of its flight, (in terminal phase it has to switch on it’s own, I think). This will allow neat stuff like shooting over your shoulder at a pursuing aircraft, and taking wildly off-angle shots.

[Bookkeeper]

Note that Stingers and other man-portable SAMs are generally too small to destroy most aircraft. Unless they get a hit on a vulnerable spot, chances are that the plane will be damaged but will get home safely. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, with the first extensive use of man-portable SAMs by the Egyptian army, the Israelis found that a lot of the A-4s used for ground attack were being damaged by SAM-7s homing on the engine exhaust but would be back in service after repairs to the tailpipe.

[UncleBill]

Without getting into the classified details that I don’t specifically recall anyway, the Stinger is not a tail-chaser per se like the Redeye or SA-7. It does use the heat of the exhaust to home in on the target, but it also “knows” speed and direction (or the way the gap is closing), and when close to the target, it moves forward of the heat plume to strike a more vulnerable spot. Back in 1973 the missiles did not do make that closing move.

Major UncleBill, USMCR
Stinger Missile Officer

[Declan]

@Brutus

Heh.

Hrmmm. I don’t think that is the difference.

AA=Anti Aircraft. From 7.62mm, to the KS-30 130mm system still in the Russian inventory, to PAC-3 Patriot SAMs, it describes a role rather than any technical specification. American forces use the acronym ‘AD’ (Air Defense) instead of AA. I don’t know, but I bet pilots still say ‘Ack Ack’.

AAA=Anti Aircraft Artillery. From 7.62mm to 100mm and beyond. It specifically describes ‘gun’ antiaircraft. A collection of ZU-23s would be described as AAA, just as would a gaggle of Chinese KS-19 100mm guns.

What we may have here is a generational change in acronyms , most of what I wrote was Vietnam era terminology , double A was at most up to 57 mm , and above that was triple A , which was artillery.

With the way the aerial types of all three services are going , the battlespace may indeed have differentiated between cordite and electronics , in separating threats.

Vaguely and sorta related to the OP: The new version of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the D variant, will have a GPS uplink to allow it to be guided by AWACS radar for most of its flight, (in terminal phase it has to switch on it’s own, I think). This will allow neat stuff like shooting over your shoulder at a pursuing aircraft, and taking wildly off-angle shots.

That has actually been around since the 70’s with both the phoenix missile and the sparrow , the Israelis used it to good effect with the elimination of the syrian airforce , back in 82, using Sparrows.

The newest wrinkle as you said , has the scorpion using its own onboard radar , allowing the awacs to release it that much faster.

Declan

[Bookkeeper]

@UncleBill

Without getting into the classified details that I don’t specifically recall anyway, the Stinger is not a tail-chaser per se like the Redeye or SA-7. It does use the heat of the exhaust to home in on the target, but it also “knows” speed and direction (or the way the gap is closing), and when close to the target, it moves forward of the heat plume to strike a more vulnerable spot. Back in 1973 the missiles did not do make that closing move.

Major UncleBill, USMCR
Stinger Missile Officer

Yes, the SAM-7 was very much a first generation missle, and newer ones are more effective and better at targetting. There is still a problem with lethality due to the small warhead size, however, although there has been some progress here as well, with improvements such as continuous rod warheads that have proven effective on larger missles.