Ideal PLA Ground Based Air Defence (SAM etc)??????

This thread is turning into a bit of a one way convo lol.

Thinking of short range point defence, and a replacement for the masses of AAA in PLA inventory, I'm wondering if a gun-missile system like the OTO-Melara Davide system is a good fit.

The PLA is shifting towards MANPADs and light SAMs such as the TY-90 and although these add great potency to PLA land forces they ave several key disadvantages:

1. The missiles are quite slow and have poor capability against fast jets, missiles or bombs.

2. They mostly have manual fire control (strength and weakness)

3. They have a relatively slow reaction times and slow rate of fire.


On the other hand modern SAMs like the SA-15 or the missiles conceptualised in above posts are much more capable, but also much more expensive.

The PLA's main short range SAMs for defending fixed locations is te HQ-7, particularly the PLAAF shelter-mounted version. These are not that good.


So, a gun-fired guided dart system would be a good choice, deployed in a manner like Skyguard and fully integrated into the ADN.

The dart would be fired by a crew-less fully automatic 57mm (or larger) gun, and be guided by either Semi-active radar guidance or laser guidance.

Basic size comparison:

(Top = One of the laser guided darts sub-munition from a Starstreak missile, middle = OTO-Malara 76mm DAVIDE radar guided (SARH) gun-dart, Third = a typical 57mm AAA shell such as in PLA Type-59, bottom = My sketch of a 57mm gun-dart)

Planeman, how reliable would a laser-guided system be under adverse weather conditions? Would it be prudent to have both laser-guidance and semi-active radar guidance (or some other means if laser is unduly affected by bad weather)?

Yeah I'd go with Radar guided. Laser has several advantages:
1) harder to detect
2) uses less energy
3) virtually impossible to countermeasure in most situations

But it's relatively short ranged and can be degraded by smoke or low cow/mist etc.

Several SAMs use laser:
1. Shorts Startstreak used by British army
2. Shorts Starburst
3. Swedish RBS-70
4. Certain versions of the Sosna/Tunguska (SA-19) family
5. Chinese QW-4

If in case this hasn't be posted before, here's a blog on PLA Air defences:

Here's a more graphical portrayal of what i've mentioned in my first post in this thread.

I've went for greatest vehicle commonality i could get away with. Preference of tracked vehicles over wheeled ones is crucial, as mobility requirement calls for as little preparation as possible. Meaning, weight of the vehicle itself would have to be the stabilizing factor when deploying radar arrays, heavy missiles, etc. And with heavy vehicles one would have to go with tracks if one has to keep some sort of decent mobility.

LRWU - 8,4 meter long vehicle. Carrying 4 long ranged missiles, performance wise something like SM-2 blockIII, only with active radar seeker. If dual seekers would not be feasible, a mix of IIR and active radar missiles should be used. Probably weighing in excess of 40 tons with a full load of missiles.

MRWU - 7,2 meter long vehicle. Carrying 6 (or 8, if it fits) medium ranged missiles. Performance wise somewhere in between of ESSM and Aster 30. Vehicle would use a mix of missiles equipped with IIR sensors and ones equipped with active radar seekers. Vehicle weight with missiles would probably be in excess of 30 tons.

SRRU - 8,4 meter long vehicle. Carrying a C band radar comparable in performance to TRML 3D radar. One of its main tasks would also be issuing midcourse correction data to missiles in flight, when needed.

VLRRU - Probably some 16 meters in length, comprising of two independently powered vehicles. Carrying a VHF radar comparable in performance to VOSTOK E radar, though probably not exceeding 1,5 meter wavelengths. Weight of the whole system would probably be in excess of 60 tons.

LRRU - Same vehicle platform as VLRRU. Carrying a L-band radar, comparable in performance to AN/TPS-117. Should also have a secondary role of aiding the SRRU units in sending datalink info to missiles in flight.

SRWU - Modified 8,4 meter long vehicle. Carries 9-12 short ranged VL missiles in Mica class, both IIR and active radar guided. Has own IIR and Optical/laser rangefinder systems as well as a low power C-band radar for air surveillance. Can be used independently of network.

PDWU - Modified 7,2 meter long vehicle. Carries a system similar to 76mm Otomat super rapide DAVIDE system. Has own IIR and Optical/laser rangefiender systems as well as a low power C-band radar for air surveillance. Can be used independently of network. If possible, using laser guidance as well as radio guidance for its rounds.

RV - Hummer sized jeep with communication equipment. Used as a relay station, to connect various nodes and points within the air defense network, either as a substitution for fixed land lines or other radio/satellite communcation, or as a separate, redundant communcations network. Datalinks working with fairly low power, highly direct, low sidelobe emission microwave bands. Must be able to handle and relay large amout of data.

IROV -Hummer sized vehicle. Equipped with an enlarged and advanced IIR and optronic system with very large zoom and laser rangefinder. Used for air surveillance only.

FV - Large wheeled vehicle, some 10-11 meters in length. Highly mobile, able to follow the rest of the IAD network components wherever needed. Carries fuel, either kerosene for the gas turbines in all the larger tracked vehicles (for electricity production) or diesel fuel for wheeled vehicles and selected, smaller, tracked vehicles.

SV - Same vehicle as above. Able to carry all of the missiles the network uses, used for replenishment on the battlefield. Has a crane for reloading.

CCV - Same vehicle as above. Mobile Command and control centres with workstations for half a dozen operators and high powered computers. All of the semi-raw data from the various sensors would get fed into these vehicles, which would then process it and distribute the fine data to every subsystem within the network, hopefully in as near to real time as possible.

In addition to vehicles drawn, there could also be electronic emission detection vehicles similar in performance to VERA and/or KOLCHUGA systems. Again, they'd be connected to the netwrok, like every other vehicle.

Finally, if using existing radar sets would prove not effective for sending midcourse data corrections to missiles in flight, a separate family of vehicles would be used for that role. The whole system would work like the current Aegis system. Especially good comparison should be the future planned SM-6 missile and the accompanying radar/datalink sets.

I think the S-400 and MIM-104 Patriot PAC2 to PAC3 are good examples to look at. A typical launcher vehicle will have 4 large TLC's (transport-launch container), each can contain 1 large missile, or be replaced by 4 smaller ones. These will make up the "core" of the long-range interception capability in a SAM battery.

Then you need some mobile medium ranged SAM systems to provide echelon defense. The German IRIS-T SL is a good example, it provides secondary ground-based medium-range air defense.

Lastly, you have CIWS / SHORAD point defense systems, which can be gun or gun and missile combo system. This system must be capable of intercepting everything from an incoming missile to a LGB to defend your assets in the modern battlefield. The CRAM (counter-RAM) system, for example, is designed to intercept incoming artillery, rockets, mortar rounsds, etc.

A SAM battalion has a lot of support vehicles. For example, the KS-1A battalion's firing section(s) has: 24 missiles, 6 dual launcher vehicles (2 missiles each), 6 transport-loading vehicles (2 missiles each), 2 power supply vehicles, 1 radar vehicle, & 1 frequency conversion power distribution vehicle.

Then you have the support section, with 1 missile test vehicle, 3 missile transport vehicles, 2 tool vehicles, 1 power supply vehicle, 1 electronics maintenance vehicle, 2 spare parts vehicles, and 1 missile testing and meteorology vehicle.

To simplify things and play armchair generalship, we'll just consolidate all the vehicles into sections with brief descriptions.

Here's my idea of a SAM Battalion:

* Operational/Firing Section(s): Long & Medium range missiles and its supporting vehicles (radar, reload, power, etc), plus land-based CIWS system.

* Echelon Defense Section(s): Short to medium ranged SAM, AA, & land-based CIWS system and its sensor/support vehicles. Deployed around the operational/firing section for outer defense layer (anti-SEAD?).

* Electronic warfare section: EW vehciles, electronic emission detection vehicles, soft-kill countermeasure vehicles, land-based CIWS defense.

EW section may also contain a "decoy section/group", made up with actual vehicles, towed decoy vehicles, and inflatable decoys with heat signature. SAM systems cost millions of dollars, but a "fake" vehicle with a mannequin might only cost you $100k.

* C&C section: includes the command staff and communications section. Responsible for maintaining communications and data-link between everyone. Land-based CIWs system.

* Maintenance section: responsible for maintaining vehicles, systems, spare parts, emergency power supply vehicles, etc. Land-based CIWS system.

* Security section: light mobile infantry responsible for perimeter security and defense. Scouting squad, observation UAV, IFV's, MANPAD, etc. Land-based mobile CIWS system for self-defense.

Very strictly structured units tend to be less mobile than units in a network of peers. Key accent in future air defense networks should be mobility. Today we have partial mobility, where high end units like long ranged sams need large areas of land and prepared "parking spots" where all of the unit sub systems can be placed, where trucks can be stabilized for firing or getting their radars up, etc. That all takes time, and frankly, too much time. Mobility should come first, even if it means larger, more expensive vehicles, smaller radars, smaller missiles and/or less missiles per system. Naturally, to get all that to work, every subsystem needs to be communicating to each other. And various radar and missile systems should not be dependant on other similar systems being ready. At any given time some radars and some missile firing units should be ready and sharing their data to any other system preparing to get ready. Being able to turn off the radar, move 3-4 kilometers to an *unprepared and random location* and turn the radar back on, all within 5 or so minutes, and repeat that a dozen times a day if necessary, is a must. And, naturally, share all the info with every other sensor system in the theater. Three radars covering one spot from three different angles and sharing their data will get much better tracking solution, better air surveillance even against LO targets, better reliability and better durability in case of an attack. Now increase that figure to a dozen or so various sensors, infrared, passive el. emission, long wave and short wave radars etc - all covering a single spot and it becomes a very tough air defense network to break.

I see a lot of ramjet SAMs in past posts of this thread which makes me wonder why? Ramjet SAMs should not be some kind of dream SAM. They are in fact, the opposite. In the past, back in the height of the Cold War, there are more ramjet SAMs in service ranging from the Talos to the Sea Dart.

So why did this entire genre got dropped out and replaced with all rocket boosted missiles?

Ramjets are not very good for acceleration. They needed to be brought to a minimal high speed before the ramjet can ignite and start to function. For a SAM its particularly a problem because your starting point is either zero speed like on the ground, or slow like on a ship. A ramjet SAM must essentially be two staged where you have a primary rocket booster motor, which has to drop off then followed by a second stage ramjet motor which ignites when the missile is at the minimal required speed. This forces ramjet SAMs to be rather big, requiring specialized rail launchers, generally too big for most VLS, or require one specially built for it, and all this means larger ships. Big means for any given displacement, you carry less missiles, and less missiles means you're less effective.

As an AAM, a ramjet can work because the launching aircraft can bring the missile to the desired minimal speed before it launches.

Since the ramjet SAM ends up rather big, having a big missile reduces its agility and makes it more difficult to do intercepts at tangents.

Some air launched ramjets use the ramjet combustion chamber like a rocket booster by packing solid rocket fuel propellant into it, letting it burn and clear the chamber. Most notable for this is the Sunburn and Krypton missiles, but there is no indication that this would be smart or be enough for SAM use where the rocket has to be strong enough to also overcome gravity.

Depends on the range, most probably. Short and even medium range sams would not benefit as much from ramjets, but long ranged sams might have the advantage there. Two staged missile could still be smaller and lighter due to better fuel efficiency than a proper rocket propelled missile.

But there are two problems. Trouble i see with ramjets is speed and trajectory. Very long ranged sams would need a lot of time to get to their targets, which is probably why today's long ranged sams are so damn fast, topping out at 6 to 7 mach. Ramjets are not really made for such speeds as their efficiency curve tops out around mach 3 or 4, and starts going down after that, with probably falling behind even rocket engine efficiency above 5 or so mach. Alternative would be a scramjet engine but technology so far has not been able to provide such missiles in mass use.

Trajectory wise, to get really long ranges, today's sams use quite parabollic trajectories, taking them very high up into thin air. It is possible ramjets would not work well or at all at those altitudes. So even though they're efficient, their trajectory may not be as efficient, meaning in the end rockets may still be a better solution.