SEAD - Suppression of Enemy Air Defense

[@rolandlee6898]

Damn... A defense channel that actually knows something about defense. I think thats a first.

[@jasminsekic3758]

south front check it out

[@Sol_Invictus510]

Jasmin Sekic south front is great! Also love how they have great info and it isn’t omg we’re are the best cause we are the west channels.

[@rolandlee6898]

@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.

[@wijayaj001]

And no robotic sound narrator.

[@hansjorgkunde3772]

@@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...

[@Starchild670]

No speech synthesizer. Yes!

[@petlahk4119]

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]

@@petlahk4119 most focus on the messenger instead on the message, present a nice package and you can sell bullshit

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@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.

[@septia101]

@@tibchy144 People buy into people!

[@tibchy144]

@@septia101, well said

[@Bigglesworthicus]

*watches all the videos on this channel* i'm basically a general now

[@DaniboyBR2]

You're more informed than the average Venezuelan general thats for sure.

[@tranceman9670]

Agreed lol

[@moneymandan6217]

🤣🤣🤣

[@galapagoensis]

Lol

[@manictiger]

I've beaten all the campaigns in Wargame: Red Dragon. Obviously I'm a strategic genius. Let me command the Middle East! I'll show you how it's done!

[@internetrules8522]

I like how you said “anti radiation missile” multiple times before shortening it to “arm” that way people have more time to understand what arm means

[@crystalballfantasy9382]

Its - Harm

[@PabloGonzalez-hv3td]

@@crystalballfantasy9382 - A HARM is a type of ARM

[@DarkShroom]

oh that's what arm means

[@StoutProper]

Radiation or radar?

[@internetrules8522]

@@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.

[@Orandu]

14:39. “He’s always watching!” Lol

[@rubayetantu5841]

Shit maan... you made my day

[@Orkneyshooter]

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.

[@cannonfodder4376]

A nice and informative video to watch before going to bed. Comprehensive and informative.

[@Ishaq_Vally]

Videos are too long though. I think 9-13 minutes are perfect timeframe

[@molnibalage83]

With many inaccuracies. You can find here better stuff here. www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30034.msg324404.html#msg324404

[@johnny1992black]

just to forget all about it when you wakeup... really informative

[@yagyugaming2525]

@@johnny1992black If you wake up tomorrow isn't guaranteed

[@johnny1992black]

@@yagyugaming2525 i dont sleep buddy so i dont wake up so this means that you can go fuck yourself

[@clippedwings225]

When you think about it, a lot of yeeting is involved in SEAD.

[@TactualSLAYER]

TheSleepingInsomniac truly next level thinking

[@clippedwings225]

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.

[@flyhigh6047]

pressing the BIG RED BUTTON "Yeet!!"

[@cp3fiu]

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

[@briana5444]

LockYourDoors LYD I will fucking nut when that happens

[@BadPractices]

Love your channel man. Keep up the good work.

[@CorretorAlyssonGomes]

I see military instructors playing this video in class as an introduction to the subject.

[@PantsofVance]

Former military analyst, I thought the same thing. Very knowledgable

[@PantsofVance]

@@randysearle2702 The last line pretty much summed it up, thanks.

[@neovo903]

I did see 2:02 some AGM-88 HARMs hitting some Sa6 Launchers and not the radar but oh well

[@gharretje]

​@@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.

[@WheelsRCool]

@@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.

[@frankcessna7345]

Always a pleasure to view your videos. Professionally done and makes complex military systems understandable to the general public. Cheers

[@Singular121]

War is a very complicated serious business.

[@Puzzoozoo]

War is a collection of fleas all fighting to decide which one owns the dog.

[@Singular121]

@@Puzzoozoo Hahaha good one.

[@Quantum-Bullet]

And a lot of money (and power) involved.

[@Powerofriend]

@@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.

[@MrBen527]

Yep

[@drupiROM]

14:56 how can you command SAM batteries, when your colleague to your left looks like that ?

[@TacticsTechniquesandProcedures]

I would command the fuck out of those radar thingies to get to her thingies

[@jurisprudens]

In Russia we have an (offensive) word for hot chicks in important positions - "soska". Meaning, a "sucker". ;)

[@junkersintutus4282]

Be a mature adult.

[@marcusrat4466]

@@junkersintutus4282 Yes my adult part is in a really "mature" stage after seeing those women

[@xenatwp]

You totally missed Artillery SEAD missions (pronounced SEE-Add not seed) basically, the artillery battery shells the SAM site to keep the crew's head down. Then the shelling stops just as the Fast Mover arrives on station and resumes as it leaves. We calculate this based on the BOD (bombs on deck) time and backing off the ToF (Time of Flight) for the artillery rounds. This way the ACs are not in danger of a mid-air collision with inflight shells.

[@nickkizich9539]

How about the video on Beyond Visual Range air combat?

[@IR-xy3ij]

@jet guy It's still a critically important capability, as it allows for you to kill beyond your adversary's reach

[@whitelabrat]

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.

[@ackwebde]

@jet guy Thank you - great read!

[@junkersintutus4282]

@jet guy Indeed, but I imagine that a real shooting war these days between modern air combatants will see BVR A2A combat attempted in earnest.

[@mcgeufer]

@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.

[@EpicSpeedademon]

7:20 I could immediately tell it's the Suwon AFB around my hometown.

[@Kane-ib5sn]

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.

[@rickc4317]

Another very well thought out and constructed video. Thank you.

[@nicholasrivera9280]

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.

[@valerie80yearsago90]

I love your videos man! Very high quality.

[@laetrille]

@Curly whirly probrably a dude

[@valerie80yearsago90]

@@laetrille actually, nope. I'm indeed a gal'! But hey, I like learning. 🤷‍♀️

[@totallyrandom3963]

Do u have insta lol

[@farzana6676]

@Joe Ç She looks way too dark skinned to be Russian. Looks latino.

[@farzana6676]

@Joe Ç Too dark plus.google.com/photos/114010419872579390243/albums/profile/6492843034051371810?iso=false

[@AdurianJ]

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.

[@AgentSmith911]

*were

[@PATTHECATMCD]

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.

[@johnc8910]

@@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.

[@PATTHECATMCD]

@@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).

[@johnc8910]

@@PATTHECATMCD :LPI and synthetic aperture scanning is not used in SAM radars. No need.

[@davidcameron5958]

i especially love and appreciate these extended, detailed videos. thank you for your hard work.

[@reedpeltier470]

I love this channel, it feels like a warm hug

[@20somthingdrifter11]

Informative and unbiased... I am shocked, in a good way though!

[@bradbechlyb9273]

Very well done. A video the average person can understand

[@Bendejo301]

I don't remember what KZbin rabbit hole I went through to find this channel. But I'm glad I did. Instant Sub.

[@DZGMR94]

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]

It would take a pretty sophisticated decoy emitter to spoof even a semi-smart ARM.

[@CovertCabal]

Dang!! Forgot!

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@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

[@LjubomirLjubojevic]

@@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.

[@eduwino151]

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

[@Torchmanz]

Dang. Where has this channel been my whole KZbin life? Awesome video, subbed and can't wait to power watch your library!

[@davidl3743]

14:39, Putin is always watching...

[@vantuz8264]

Nice to see an unbiased video focused on tech and tactics. I have one more addition to the list of anti-SEAD defences: decoys. Ones that imitate radar transmitter signal so that anti-radar missile will lock on decoy instead of the real radar. One documentary that i saw describes the usage of kitchen microwaves as improvised decoys in Yugoslavia in 1999 and that it was capable of making USA waste munitions on empty fields. (I take that info with a pinch of salt of course)

[@md73737373]

Didnt happen. Different frequencies.

[@mr.normalguy69]

14:38 Why do they have Putin's picture on the wall?

[@NiumeLTU]

So he could always see them working, no slacking in mother Russia.

[@Puzzoozoo]

For the same reason US sites have Benjamin Netanyahu's picture on the wall, to remind them who they really work for.

[@noPCtoday]

@@Puzzoozoo I don't agree with your opinion but that's a funny remark. Cheers mate and have a nice day :)

[@markbradley6335]

Because TrumpanZee is Putin's weiner cleaner. MAGA My Advisor Got Arrested

[@iamunamed5800]

@@Puzzoozoo Just like what the other guy said, not my actual opinion but made me laugh lmao

[@EvolNioxis]

Covert cabal and Defense updates you two are my favorite channels that cover this topic.

[@vongillan]

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

[@ericclausen6772]

Yeah this channel doesn't cover crap or lies that plane got hit by flak

[@EUK007]

This is a very good and informative video without any robotic voice. You've just earned my subs.

[@BigSmartArmed]

except that the author feed you a bunch of factually wrong information, but hey, eat up.

[@MrXCQT]

14:41 Putin pictures everywhere :D

[@stephan6113]

I was about to say the same thing

[@donberg01]

Great vid, good info! Aggressor back & forth to the defender, but he who outspends the other is the winner $$$!

[@jsmpsnn]

sweet been binge watching all night

[@ColumbianSpirit]

jsmpsnn same lol..

[@dezzjays9568]

Idiot

[@jackie520]

@@dezzjays9568 um why?

[@Ethorbit]

Real Content Shut the fuck up, kid.

[@activeal]

Great job covering the SEAD mission.

[@thotarojoestar3045]

Boy, here come the 14 y/o 4 star generals

[@TheAngriestGamer.]

Im surprised. you're the 1st person on youtube to talk about military stuff that actually has a fair idea of what they are actually talking about, and was much more accurate than not.. also props for using DCS. its not perfect, but its the best non-classified thing out there.

[@Alecxace]

It literally spells DEAD and dude pronounces it DEED...wut?

[@FebiMaster]

Alecxace Because it’s an abbreviation instead of a full word

[@Willy_Tepes]

@@FebiMaster It does not get more "abbriviated" than DEAD.

[@timk.1395]

@@FebiMaster It is an acronym.

[@LeonnexFrost]

its actually pronounced SEE-ad and DEE-ad if the mw2 advisors did their job

[@Hongobogologomo]

Do you pronounce read like red?

[@andreja2726]

Best military channel on YT. Period!

[@amin8691]

human voice, yea.... well explain.👍

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Something interesting to look at with Harm's was it's performance in the Yugoslavian wars the US fired over 500 harm's they thought they'd destroyed all armoured vehicles in the region and taken out vast amounts of the air defence systems, when actually it seems possibly 14 targets where taken out of commission of which none where independently taken out. (This is from memory but bascially the numbers are around that)

[@_.-._.-._.-._.-]

That is vastly incorrect. Nowhere near 500 HARM missiles were used. There were only somewhere around 5,000 sorties flown *in total* by NATO aircraft. Of which, only a fraction of those sorties were actual strike missions of any sort. And of that smaller fraction, only a smaller fraction of SEAD missions were flown. The majority of strike missions targeted military bases, military command and control, ammunition production, aviation repair infrastructure, and armored vehicle repair infrastructure. About a quarter of Serbia's heavy vehicles and artillery were destroyed in the short air campaign which ended before/without ground forces being used in combat.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@_.-._.-._.-._.- I said around 500 not 5000 it's in the original comment around 500. A quarter? Where in the world did you get that stat from?

[@Traffy_01]

best channel

[@Emilthehun]

If we didn't have bases overseas, we wouldn't need air defense. Nobody would cross the ocean to attack us. Imagine all that money spent on our infrastructure instead of useless wars!

[@chrishieke1261]

But what about those Canadians to the north! ;)

[@britishpeopleyellowteeth6071]

no computer voice love it....can you make a video of the zumwalt??/ at 14:41 a picture of putin lol

[@Conserpov]

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!"

[@talltale9760]

Conser pov you seem to be overreacting lmao

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Also SAM sites use physcial spotters as well to track what is around to check ligitmate targets and well trained SAM sites will often turn on there radar systems for 30 seconds get a lock fire or not and turn off and move all the equipment as soon as they know they have either fired or been spotted.

[@AgentSmith911]

Hi, can you make a video of Israel's chances of successfully bombing Iran's nuclear facilities without being shot down by SAMs? And return safely to Israel without losing any aircraft? Specifically the F-35. I think Iran has S-300 now.

[@mickeyg7219]

Binkov's Battlegrounds cover that (sort of), if Israel is attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, it'll most likely be done using ballistic missiles, it's much harder to defend against than aircraft and cruise missiles.

[@rerbitd7094]

Iran has at its disposal six types of complexes, from the old Soviet C-75 to Tor-1M. The most massive SAM of Iranian air defense is the American MIM-23 Hawk - there are more than one and a half hundred of them. Also recently began the production of its own "Shalamcha", created on the basis of "Hawk".

[@rerbitd7094]

Conor McGregor's Pool Noodle Are you just talking about attacking an independent country? Are you from USA ?

[@pteppig]

@@evilzarmy1 yea, it's pretty easy to destroy an AA site at visual range if it's not even active. They have shot down Turkish and Israeli Jets with pantsir before. Also, current upgraded f15 have few in common with an f15a0, Israel produces its own custom avionic upgrades. Probing the capabilities of a system during an actual engagement produces far more reliable information than just screaming "murrica" or "Russia"" and attacking what's basically a steel container. They WERE attacking the site preemptively, when it was offline, because they knew the location and had seen the capability first hand just days before.

[@pteppig]

Israels Chance at attacking nuclear enrichment sites and especially the power grid, are pretty good. They have good information on the sites and can use sub launched cruise missiles to take them out, without risking any fighters. But Iran also has a good chance at defending some targets against cruise missiles, if they have access to Russian ECM systems, like the ones used in Syria. The majority of the cruise missiles that were launched from the us destroyer against the airbase did not make it there. But, like in that example, every ECM or AA system can be saturated, even if they are informed of the attack before hand. And the ones that got through, hit their targets.

[@norkator]

Very well made video. Explained with very informative way which keeps you watching till the end being interested all time.

[@firefightergoggie]

14:55 and 15:01 - Russian Air Force chicks!! Russian girls!! Yay!! 💓 🐦 😁

[@FusionC6]

I noticed that too! HELLO!

[@trollmcclure1884]

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.:)

[@jillvalentinefan77]

That's how they get ya. Russia will not hesitate to blind us with tits instead of nukes.

[@TwixSvK]

Russian girl will call the sead aircraft thru radio and ask them to go away

[@videoepicreviews8437]

@@jillvalentinefan77 well said saddam hussein

[@JavierCR25]

This is by far one of the best KZbin channels

[@pacus123]

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

[@hansjorgkunde3772]

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.

[@lightningdriver81]

Excellent video, well presented, a real voice and great history. Bravo.

[@markbrisec3972]

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....

[@Simons3301]

Thanks for the video bro. No voice synth Vids are the best. Interesting subject! Love your work, keep it up

[@clankplusm]

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)

[@rogerman65]

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.

[@BigSmartArmed]

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

[@DarkShroom]

woah this is some detail and research in this channel! well done, refreshing

[@drbendover7467]

the iron dome in Israel has worked well for years and now with stealth with small glid bombs and decoys Syria's S-300 won't really last long:)

[@johnc8910]

Iron Dome is designed to defend against MLRS-type unguided rockets. There's no reason you couldn't use them as a terminal defense for a SAM battery, but it has nothing to do with attacking one.

[@shmeckle666]

You sound like you’re out if your league mate. S-300s aren’t surface to surface missiles....?

[@hansjorgkunde3772]

The Pantir S is the close range protection against incoming missiles for the S-300. If they were able to destroy one there are a bunch others to do the job.. its not the main system. So the IDF achieved exactly nothing.

[@RobertLock1978]

He's too busy bending over.... ;D

[@michaelalexander3078]

Robert Bryant Lock 😂😂😂, well played sir!

[@concernedcitizen8665]

Internal magnetosphere guidance is now very real and very accurate, I think this combined with A.I. visual identification of targets will make an unbeatable guided munition.

[@daseladi]

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.

[@socratesa2536]

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.

[@amitkp6957]

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.

[@emigdiogreen7439]

OH YEAH YEAH

[@ManofCulture]

OH YEAH YEAH

[@ausaskar]

I never asked for this.

[@emigdiogreen7439]

@@ausaskar I did. Oh yeah yeah

[@Blaster53]

Congratulations on such a comprehensive presentation. I love and follow your channel as I consider it amongst the most reliable if not as the most reliable source of information in field which is saturated with hate, bias and fake information, many of which are acting as pure and totally unreliable and fake propaganda. You are demonstrating what should look like and to be the true professionalism in media. Thanks and all the best.

[@MrEmilecraft]

1:48 The Australian air force ensuring the death of one of their pilots

[@detailingdiaries6562]

It certainly makes the case for space based weaponry. Dropped depleted uranium darts at terminal velocity will be very difficult to counter or defend against.

[@heffaazul]

Russian trolls be like........wait what? This stuff can't be correct. RT told us we were invincible. 😂😂

[@jubeiorigami4096]

Russia has Measures against Seads. Elextronic warfare and point defense systems again a saturated attack. Then there's always the option of attacking the platform launching the missiles.

[@jubeiorigami4096]

Funny how 99% of the 1000s of people that appear on RT are AMERICAN, BRITISH and other NON RUSSIAN EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS. they use RT as a PLATFORM to present information that US fake news media would keep under wraps.

[@pacus123]

@@jubeiorigami4096 Well done! People forget that a capable military can also attack the platforms launching the missiles.

[@whatdaheck9667]

they are fools ,for every radar site and every launch vehicle we have 10 ballistics for ,its why they just talk sh!t instead of doing sh!t

[@DamirAsanov]

@@whatdaheck9667 You have ballistics and others also have ballistics.

[@kek207]

Whats really impressive is the tor short range system. It has a range of around 10 km and can shoot on the move

[@MGort-bb8op]

And still, the world accepts it when Russia pulls down a passenger plane ...

[@komradekat3557]

That was your CIA backed Ukrainians

[@markbradley6335]

Russia pulls down TrumpanZee's pants every damn day. He's Putin's BEACH

[@laetrille]

@@komradekat3557 Mmmmm no

[@dmitrit.4862]

Kerwin They‘re No. 1 in overthrowing governments and fighting wars.

[@laetrille]

@@GBR9794 "Because almost the entire world hate US" >>>This is objectively untrue and fallacious. Its an overgeneralization based on your own day to day interactions. American culture, food, technology, trends etc... are very popular around the world, this makes people at least open to the idea of the Unites States of America, i.e. they can sympathize. Sure many dislike the US as a whole because of out foreign policy but people who truly hate the US for what it stands for and just anything American in general are few and far in between when compared to the number of people who like the US.

[@MatsNorway]

I would love more info on low flying, the evolution of the tactics, the counters and so on.

[@jamesk4885]

It’s pronounced Sea Add. Just saying.

[@tomriley5790]

One thing that wasn't mentioned was decoys from the defender side - in the Balkans they used microwaves without the doors. They got engaged as radars.

[@brettmoore3194]

All this wasted human potential.

[@PwerRanger01]

You do realise that most of todays tech advancements including the very computer or phone you wrote this message on has come from military research and development. War happens, it always has and always will. That saying "Those who want peace prepare for war" is shown to be accurate throughout history many times.

[@oppotato5440]

Where do you think gps came from

[@andrewkelley7062]

Glass fireworks creat compressed drops that are easy broken but they act like sand blasting when hitting a moving target the elements also break into sand at the ground. They are also hard to detect only fully destroy high speed targets and depending on particulate size can stay up for a significant time.

[@humanreasonist988]

If I understand it right [Im not an expert] - its all about the ability to detect and track: if the attacker is detected, he risks to be neutralised by an Air Defense Missile, and vice-versa. The one who detects first and shoots first, is the winner. Only refuge for the detected: move quickly to another spot and/or take another 'Radar Identity'. So, my suggestion would be: do technological research about *HOW* a detected weapons (SAM) unit can change its identity once it has been detected or pin-pointed. Is there a way to make SAM's *stealthy* ? Or give them the ability to provide attacking enemy aircraft with false corrupted information ??!

[@rogerman65]

Most FM-CW radar systems use one (1) transmitter antenna and multiple receiver antennas. The transmitter is continuously on the same frequence as the receiver.

[@saadman920]

finally an unbiased video from a military channel

[@credence7777777]

you are so good at this. honestly, well done.

[@ahmedrasoul6674]

Great catch on SAM systems mobility in Syrian war.

[@jcbraka3771]

An open suggestion to our forces: Consider the interceptig missilee as primary target. A fast flying object designed to hit,, directly or indiectly, a moving targe is totally defenseless against another designed specifically to taget it. Due to the lack of sensors, the missile is unable to detect itself from the incoming threath then also to take evasive actions. Moreover, the evasive actions would reduce the range of the proyector or even neutralize the threat for the SEAD action. I have some ideas to do that...

[@mmarsh1972]

Stand off Attack, Jamming, SEAD There is actually a 4th method current under development..Decoys. I forgot the same of the system as I saw this on a documentary, but the USAAF is developing a new Decoy system to deal with advanced Russian and Chinese AD systems. A Drone Launched from a mother ship (usually a transport) slightly ahead of a real strike package. While in flight, the Drone created dozens of electrical Decoys that imitate the characteristics of real combat aircraft. The SAM radar locks on and fires at these phantoms instead not being able to tell they are ghosts. While the SAM operators are chasing these ghosts the real strike package has gotten into range and takes out the radar using a AGM-87 or similar.

[@DarkMatter61]

Excellent video as always.

[@-oysterthief4444]

I love how this Russian tech was believed to be so much better than it turns out to be! If Russia had all of this tech and I worked half as well as they claimed back then, they would have conquered Ukraine months ago

[@spazmonkey3815]

Thank you,......probably the most comprehensive info I've received on this subject.

[@Inviting1word]

Good reports as always brother.

[@itwasme2435]

That a lot of good stuff here, very great work man

[@indyjons321]

I think if anything, survival will come down to who can move without getting shot.

[@frenchhonhon]

14:38 this is my favorite scene

[@hunter.1]

brother your channel is great! full of information and you pass it in a very easy way to understand. Im serious you are the only channel that ive seen that does not join in politics subject as unfortunately happens in the similar channels from my country, you focus trully on information and this is awesome. please keep this very good work. thank you and best regards from Brazil

[@nelsonm5564]

love the new graphics as usual spectacular knowledge on the subject.

[@sheadjohn]

the us communication sight that you showed is directional. Very directional. the missile would need to search for the signal and the frequency. The tac-sat radio antenna you showed is directional towards space and does not continuous transmit.

[@neoconwarhawk1001]

Attacking air defences is quite a difficult job because both sides can uses decoys. Both sides can hide in their different ways and both sides can jam. But I think air to air combat is more of a challenge because air to air missiles are much more deadly then anti fighter surface to air missiles.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Anti SEAD tactic, used and proven perilous for "wild weasels"... 1) Turn surveilance radar for a matter of seconds, only until you get position, direction and speed and immediately turn it off. Very short time, not giving the SEAD planes time to pinpoint your exact location. Then manually calculate the point of impact of missile to the plane (as if the missile is launched and guided properly), manually turn launchers into that rough point and launch minimum 2 missiles with a delay between shots. Also, point manually guidance radar into that direction, but don't turn it on yet, You know target elements, you know the distance and the speed of your missile... Upon launching, start a stop watch and wait... At this point, missiles are in the air, but the target knows nothing about it. On the other hand, if you keep it up this way, they have pretty much 0 chances to hit. BUT... Some 3-4 seconds before the expected time of impact, you turn the guidance radar on. The missiles that are already in the air and close to the target will pick up the signal in flight and start homing. In those 3-4 seconds they will either hit or miss; the pilot has those 3-4 seconds to react to the missile threat as well and most likely not enough time to pinpoint the position of the radar. The SAM crew, as soon as they see hit or miss, turn the radar off again and relocate, just in case. This way, radar was on for two 3-4 second periods and did the guidance for only that time, so most likely remained safe while shooting at an enemy that can't fire back. In simple terms: guidance took 3-4 seconds instead of 10+ seconds. The method is often combined with false radar positions and false radiation sources to confuse the SEAD plane into not being sure which one is real, even if it gets to pinpoint a location. Tactics used to shoot down an F-16 over Bosnia and later during the Nato bombing of Yugoslavia. SA-6 Gainful (Kub) proven to be very effective when used this way. 2) A tactic used in Vietnam... As soon as a SAM site realizes SEAD planes are turning that way, they turn their radar off. However, then another, previously inactive radar at different spot turns on. Once wild weasels start turning towards him, he also turns off. And then the third radar turns on. As soon as the go for that radar, the previous two radars suddenly come to life at the same time and all 3 of them start launching missiles simultaneously. Now, weasels have missiles coming at them from 3 different directions and they have to choose: stay on radar they are going to and attack it but risking almost certain shooting down or disengage and start evasive maneuvers. High level of coordination between SAM units is an imperative here... 3) Place radar SAMs in rather an expected spot (or even better, false radiation source) using topography to predict the approach of SEAD/DEAD planes; deliberately leaving some holes and passages that seem safe. In those spots, you place short range air-defense units, mainly armed with IR guided missiles, MANPADS and AAA. Basically, create an ambush with (false) radar guided SAM as a bait. Hopefully, SEAD planes will use those lines of approach on low altitudes and end up hammered by these systems. So, a bit of brains and cunning can beat the technology. Oh... Greetings from Serbian air defense and special mention to F-117A stealth fighter...

[@mattyu1818]

My favourite channel on KZbin. Thanks mate. Could you do a realistic scenario video of a cruise missile + Growler + F22 / F35 / B2 vs S400 + S500 + Pantsir? And % success and likely losses etc. Perhaps showing the B2s chances vs say an F35 in the above scenario

[@peachtrees27]

Do what? (head spinning...)

[@mattyu1818]

@@peachtrees27 haha no idea mate. I got excited I think!

[@ItsDeebs]

I would launch high altitude weather balloons or lower altitude (5km) cabled ones that act as reflector relays to bounce radar over mountainous terrain. Make them small, camouflaged and stealth if possible. When destroyed they exploded and releasing a large clouds of chaff across a wide area.

[@sheadjohn]

@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.

[@Meroboy34]

Dude I love your videos keep up the good work 👍

[@busterbeagle2167]

My favorite channel. Keep em coming