|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Mig 31/SAM 10 question.
glenn239
12/8/2004 12:44:35 PM
|
| I myself doubt the capability exists (or we would have heard of it by now).
The reason I selected SA10 (or 12) was threefold:
First, they were designed and produced for the for the same branch of the Soviet armed forces - the air defense forces, not the air force or the army. With Soviet doctrine of the era being highly focused on the primacy of surface-directed intercepts and control, it seemed less of a stretch for them to patch their interceptors into the SAM net than it would for us.
Next, the design criteria for the MIG31 was to provide strategic air defense against saturation cruise missile attacks. So exploiting it's inherent datalink capability to net with the Grumble seemed a natural thing to do - how else could one or two Foxhounds cope with a raid of 40-60 cruise missiles except by directing ground fire? Scrambling in more fighters might take too long.
Finally, the SA10 system, being track via missile and already datalinked into the defense net, seems to me to already have most of the capabilities necessary. As I see it, the MIG would pass off target data to the SAM radar via datalink. The SAM would lock on to the transmitting MIG and triangulate for a firing solution. I don't think the MIG would have to track the SAM's - the SA10 could do that. Since the target would be low and quite some distance from the SAM battery, the actual trajectory of the missiles should be somewhat ballistic, meaning that the firing unit should be able to track and communicate with them until virtually the last moment before impact.
The major techinical hurdle would be ensuring that the SAM missile was able to home in using the MIG's radar reflections of the target. The attack would still be the SAM's normal track via missile, not a beam rider - think of the MIG as simply another "missile" in the loop.
The payoff, IMO, is that a combined arms approach exploits the strengths of both the MIG and the Grumble. The MIG's contribution is the ability to lookdown/shootdown very accurately over huge swaths of territory at very high speeds. It's angle of ingress and egress cannot be predicted beforehand, meaning that ECM assets will not be as well positioned to deal with it as they would against a known or suspected SAM sight. It also is far less vulnerable to HARM fire than a surface battery.
The SAM's contribution is being able to supply dozens, if not 100's, of missile shots, thus allowing the MIG to shoot at as many targets as feasible as it screams across the front at high speed. It also has a very large advantage in raw processing power, meaning that it's ECCM ability should be superior to the MIG's on it's own.
Now, assuming this system works, and a Foxhound with an SA10 battery in range catches a squadron of, say, 12 Tornado aircraft making an ultra-low penetration. Barring an intercept by an escorting fighter, is there any reason why it could not shoot down every single one of them? |
| |
|
|
|
