In two separate incidents, the efficacy of Russia’s S-400 and America’s Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems were put to the test, and they both failed to down the enemy intruders, and in both cases, these were drones. In the first instance, a Ukrainian kamikaze drone struck Russia’s Engels base and three Russian servicemen were killed in the incident. According to Russian officials, the drone was successfully intercepted and no harm was caused to any aircraft, though a loss of three personnel rarely counts as a successful interception. A month earlier, the Engels base and the Dyagilevo base were attacked by Ukrainian aircraft, and there is speculation amongst the war watchers that the attacks were carried out by kamikaze drones. In these attacks Russian Strategic bombers Tu-95 and Tu-160 were targeted with one Tu-95 being destroyed at the Engels base.
Last week South Korea had intercepted a group of North Korean drones that had entered South Korean airspace during which a Ka-1 of South Korea crashed. However, in a recent press release, South Korea’s Joint Chief of Staffs confirmed that the five drones reached the Northern part of the capital city Seoul, and one drone managed to enter the no-fly zone around the office of the South Korean President. South Korean attack helicopters fired more than 100 rounds at the drones, however none of the five drones were shot down. The South Korean media and public have slammed the the South Korean forces for a lack of preparedness and are pressing the government for an investigation into the lapse.
Analysis
In the case of the attack on the Russian Air Bases and the violation of South Korea’s airspace including the breach of the air bubble over the capital city Seoul, leading SAM systems, particularly the S-400 and Patriot were either effectively defeated and surpassed, or the operators didn’t take the threat seriously in order to activate the SAMs. In the Russian context, the bases that were attacked fall under the S-400’s envelope. The Engels base is protected by the S-400 unit present in Volgograd which is only three hundred kilometres away, and the Dyagilevo base is protected by the S-400 unit assigned to Moscow which is four hundred kilometres away. In addition, the two bases have their own S-300 and Pantsir SAM batteries that also failed to intercept the kamikaze drones. There are a few possibilities why Russia failed to intercept the drones and these include; that Ukraine may have sent a swarm of drones and a large chunk of them were shot down with a couple sneaking past Russian Air Defences. However, there is no evidence or claim mentioning such a scenario. It is possible that Russian air defences were caught napping and the Ukrainians got the upper hand in these instances. It is also likely that Russian doctrine for engaging drones doesn’t comprise the use of S-400 and S-300 missiles since the missiles are far costlier than the drones. That does not mean the powerful tracking radars of the S-400 wouldn’t be used to track the drone during its flightpath, allowing Russian forces to take out the drones with a cheaper alternative such as MANPADs. There is definitely a looming question about Russia’s laxed attitude towards its air defence, allowing the drones to strike almost seven hundred kilometres into their territory.
If the Western Bloc had been celebrating the ineffectiveness of the S-400, their joy was surely short lived when South Korean air defences failed to down five North Korean drones over the skies of their capital city Seoul. South Korea operates the Patriot SAM batteries that it purchased from America and signed a fresh contract in 2020 worth USD 600 million to buy new batteries while upgrading the previous batteries with new software. Seoul’s airspace is protected by Patriot batteries which operate both the versions of the missile system, the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)- 2 and 3. The PAC 2 is tasked to intercept aerial aircraft while the PAC-3 is a missile interceptor and the Patriot batteries in and around Seoul have a combination of the two PACs. The Pac-2 failed to intercept either of the two drones, and unlike the Russians, the Koreans weren’t caught by surprise. South Korean Air Force was able to scramble attack helicopters, F-15s. F-16s, Surveillance drones, AWACS and light attack aircraft in pursuit of the drones, and even with a hundred shots being fired by the attack helicopters, the drones escaped safely into North Korean airspace.
This leaves us with two plausible conclusions, that South Korea too doesn’t have a doctrine for intercepting drones with SAM batteries, or, amidst the chaos, the SAM battery operators chose not to engage to prevent a possible fratricide. Western media and experts suggest that using the Patriot missile to shoot a drone makes no sense because of the steep cost-to-reward ratio. As an argument that is correct, however South Korea’s response with multiple aircraft launches, firing of helicopter ammunition, and losing a KC-1 aircraft during the scramble surely nullifies that cost-to-reward ratio. Credit must be given to the South Korean military for coming clean to the public in their press briefing, admitting that drowning the small drones was like “catching a fly with a cannon ball”.
The penetration of Russian and South Korean air defences has given a glimpse into the benefit of low-cost drones to create chaos and even conduct precision strikes. Countries that have been relying on the S-400 and Patriot missile systems for large air space envelopes must work towards creating multiple short ranged and cost-effective air defences within the larger umbrellas. Additionally, air forces will also have to develop a doctrine for engaging swarm drones and drones in smaller numbers that violate the airspace. Scrambling fighter aircraft to chase after drones doesn’t seem to be a cost-effective strategy and has the potential of posing a threat to the lives of the pilots too. Air Forces have to come up with alternate cost-effective methods to tackle drone incursions, and some of these could include using shoulder fired SAMs and very short ranged SAMs (VRSAM), Anti-Aircraft guns, Drone Jammers, and unorthodox methods like shooting the drone down with vehicle mounted light machine guns, all of which are options that are far cheaper than firing a missile from the S-400 or Patriot battery, or even scrambling aircraft.
Short Take-Offs
Headlines from the world of aviation.
A Russian Su-35 scored a triple kill on a single patrol when it shot down a Ukrainian Mig 29 and two Mi-8 helicopters in the Donetsk People’s Republic. On the same day, Ukraine lost 9 UAVs, including a Tb-2 Bayraktar to Russian aircraft.
A Mexican Air Force Pilatus PC-7 was conducting a strafing run against drug cartels when it came under heavy fire from Barett M82 Anti-Material Rifle. The aircraft and the pilot were unhurt in the incident. [Video in Link]
Following Israel, the U.S Military has grounded some F-35 aircraft after an F-35 crashed while landing in Texas last month.
At least 24 Chinese aircraft including J-10, J-11, J-16 and Y-8 anti-submarine breached Taiwan’s Air Identification Zone (ADIZ). Four naval vessels also entered Taiwan’s Special Economic Zone at the same time when the aircraft breached Taiwan’s ADIZ.
Good one Rohan. Hopefully , we should get more details from South Korean investigation. Russia/ Ukraine is different as they have a measure on most of the common eqpt and can exploit the shortcomings. Shooting cheap drones (with motorcycle engines ) using million dollar wpn does not make sense. So, effective counter-drone tech/ wpns are a necessity.