Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from SEAD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), also known as "Wild Weasel" and "Iron Hand" operations in the United States, are military actions to suppress enemy surface-based air defenses (Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA)), primarily in the first hours of an attack.

One quarter of American combat sorties in recent conflicts have been SEAD missions.[1]

History[edit]

World War II[edit]

During World War II the German Luftwaffe attempted to destroy the Chain Home radar stations as part of the Battle of Britain in order to degrade Britain's air defense network. However, German High Command failed to realize the efficiency of not only the radar stations themselves but the command and control system directing Britain's air defenses. After initial optimism regarding the radar sites' destruction it was eventually decided to halt these attacks altogether except for exceptional circumstances.[2] As the air war in Europe shifted in favor of the Allies, the Germans relied heavily on their AAA to defend against bombing attacks. This was borne out in Allied aircraft losses between 1943 and 1944, where losses to enemy fighters was cut in half but losses to flak increased tenfold.[3]

Allied response to these developments were several. Understanding the importance of German radar sites the Allies directed attacks against these installations and introduced new technology to counteract the effects of radar-directed AAA including CARPET and WINDOW. A change in tactics saw bomber formations directed to fly higher and more spread out to avoid the effects of flak. Bombing missions were also carried out to accomplish the physical destruction of AAA sites, using imagery intelligence to locate the weapons and employing both heavy bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress and fighter-bombers to destroy them. The P-47 Thunderbolt in particular was chosen for this task on account of its ability to survive enemy fire. The effect of these missions varied, with losses suffered by fighter-bombers much higher - up to 40% in some cases - on account of their low-altitude attacks.[4] Artillery also played a major role in suppressing air defenses, with the British Army the first to develop what became known as counterflak or "Apple Pie" missions. These missions were first employed to limited effect during the Battle of France but matured as the war progressed. The largest SEAD mission in history took place on March 24, 1945, when artillery forces of the British XII Corps attempted to knock out the local German air defense network in support of Operation Varsity. Although twenty-four thousand artillery shells were fired over the course twenty-two minutes at some one hundred targets, the mission was unsuccessful on account of inaccurate targeting data and insufficient firepower.[5]

In the Pacific Theater the Japanese had made only limited progress in developing radar for air defense and what systems they did have were primitive and easy to avoid. Nevertheless as the Americans began the bombing campaign against Japan there was concern over the large number of radar sites located on the home islands. For this purpose B-24 Liberators and B-29 Superfortresses were fitted with radar-homing devices to conduct "ferret" missions to locate and identify radar transmissions. The information brought back from these missions was used to outfit other B-29s with radar jammers and chaff to confuse Japanese air defense radars as they conducted their missions.[6] B-25 Mitchells were also outfitted with radar-homing equipment and used to lead "hunter-killer" teams of other B-25s in locating and destroying Japanese early-warning radar sites.[7]

Korean War[edit]

In the Korean War, SEAD was still an undefined mission, with the neutralization of air defenses based on its relation to specific targets or operations rather than as part of a larger strategy.[8] Thus while technology changed, many of the tactics for dealing with enemy air defenses were very similar to previous war. For aircraft performing missions at low altitudes AAA remained a constant danger; in fact it was less dangerous for a UNC pilot to engage in air-to-air combat than it was to attack ground targets.[9] The terrain and weather of the Korean Peninsula also contributed to the dangers associated with ground-attack missions. However the advent of jet aircraft brought about many changes. Compared to propeller aircraft jets were much faster, could climb more steeply, were more resistant to damage and were quieter in operation. They were thus able to more effectively attack ground targets and escape, and while both jet- and propeller-driven aircraft participated in the Korean War the latter suffered heavier losses and were largely phased out by the end of the conflict.[10]

As the war progressed the Communists developed a highly centralized integrated air defense network, incorporating early-warning radars, ground-controlled interception and AAA. The potency of this network compelled UNC bombers to conduct bombing missions at altitudes beyond the reach of ground-based weapons although this impacted the accuracy of their bombs. The UNC also possessed an effective air defense network, however the NKAF had been largely destroyed early in the war and the PLAAF's almost exclusive mission was air superiority.[11]

Vietnam War[edit]

See also: Wild Weasel

The Vietnam War saw the evolution of what would be known as SEAD over the course of the conflict. With the start of Operation Rolling Thunder, North Vietnam's air defenses were only dealt with in a piecemeal fashion in spite of intelligence indicating that the North Vietnam Army was developing an integrated air defense network dedicated to air deniability. This included the construction of sixty SA-2 Guideline SAM sites by the end of 1965 which, though only accomplishing one hit for every thirteen missiles fired, were responsible for shooting down nearly 15% of American aircraft lost that year. Early attempts to counter this system consisted of modified F-100 Super Sabers using crude homing equipment to locate and bomb radar-guided SAM and AAA sites, but these missions incurred heavy losses and the threat to American aircraft continued to grow.[12] In 1966 a task force was put together to analyze the challenges presented by the NVA's air defense network and recommend ways to counter it. One of these was for aircraft to operate at low altitudes (below 500 meters) where the missiles were less effective. Unfortunately this also put the aircraft well within range of AAA, which would account for nearly 85% of all American aircraft losses during Rolling Thunder.[13] Eventually new SEAD aircraft were developed, the EF-105F/F-105G Thunderchief, which mounted more sophisticated detection equipment and carried the AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 Standard ARM anti-radiation missiles. These fighter-bombers became very adept at tracking down and destroying ground-based air defense weapons such that an overwhelming number of NVA SAM operators chose to turn off their radars when an F-105G was spotted. While this prevented the SAM's physical destruction it essentially accomplish the same mission of suppressing air defense around the target. Electronic warfare aircraft were also used to jam NVA radars, first the EB-66 Destroyer and then the EA-6B Prowler. In spite of these developments SEAD would remained a primarily tactical function during Rolling Thunder, with American leadership either unaware or unappreciative of North Vietnam's integrated air defense structure.[13]

Weapons[edit]

The weapons most often associated with this mission are anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) such as the American AGM-88 HARM and British ALARM. Weapons used for SEAD missions can be anything which damages or destroys a component of an air defense system. A Paveway LGB, for example, is not a SEAD-specific munition but, when used to destroy a radar antenna, it achieves the objective of Suppression of Enemy Air Defense.

Possibly the most effective type of unguided ("dumb") weapon used during SEAD strikes are cluster bombs, because many SAM sites are dispersed over a fairly wide area, in order to increase the difficulty of inflicting serious damage on the battery, and the relative "softness" of the targets (missile launchers, exposed radars, etc.). The Mk-20 Rockeye II anti-armor cluster munition and the CBU-87 general-purpose cluster munition are often used against these fixed-location SAM sites, often for "clean-up" of a site whose radar or C&C facilities are first destroyed by a longer-range ARM or AGM. The relatively new American AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon is a valuable SEAD weapon due to its fairly long standoff range which allows the launching aircraft to avoid being threatened by all but the longest-range missiles, and its relatively large area of destruction against soft targets.

Artillery is also used to conduct SEAD missions. After World War II the combined arms nature of warfare meant an increased role in ground forces performing SEAD missions in support of air operations. During the Cold War the American military developed a joint definition of SEAD responsibilities, with the Army responsible for all SEAD missions within the range of observable fire and the Air Force for all missions further away. The Soviet Union placed less emphasis on using artillery to conduct SEAD missions, although where possible artillery would be used to clear a path for attack helicopters. Because of their superior range rocket artillery such as MLRS are the ideal weapon for conducting SEAD operations.[14]

By country[edit]

In World War II the U.S. specifically chose the P-47 Thunderbolt for AAA neutralization on account of its ability to survive enemy fire. Heavy bombers including the B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, B-25 Mitchell and B-29 Superfortress were also employed for destroying air defense sites. These bombers could also be equipped with early radar jamming and radar-homing equipment to confuse and locate enemy radar installations.[4] During the Vietnam war, the physical destruction of air defense systems were carried out by dedicated variants of tactical fighters. The first of these were modified F-100 Super Sabres with rudimentary radar-detection equipment.[15] Due to unsatisfactory results the F-100s were later replaced with the superior F-105G Thunderchief which mounted more specialized detection equipment and carried the potent AGM-45 Shrike and AGM-78 Standard ARM missiles. These were also supported by the radar-jamming EB-66 and EA-6 electronic warfare aircraft.[16] Towards the end of the war a "Wild Weasel" variant of the F-4 Phantom II was developed which, along with the EF-111 Raven and EC-130H Compass Call, became part of the US Air Force's "triad" of electronic combat aircraft. Additional aircraft often part of SEAD missions included the E-3 Sentry, EC-130E and RC/EC-135.[17] On the other hand, the Soviets preferred to use modified stand-off interceptors such as the Mikoyan MiG-25BM and missile-armed bombers such as the Tupolev Tu-22M to destroy targets from a distance rather than up-close.

As of 2014, the main United States Air Force (USAF) SEAD aircraft is the F-16 Fighting Falcon, a multirole aircraft configurable for a variety of ground strike missions including SEAD. The Air Force and Navy's emphasis in recent decades on multirole aircraft over dedicated single-role designs has largely made specified SEAD variants obsolete; virtually any aircraft in the U.S. arsenal designed to carry air-to-ground ordnance can, if needed, be configured for SEAD and be highly effective in that profile. The F/A-18 Super Hornet navy multirole fighter, F-15E Strike Eagle medium strike fighter, AV-8B Harrier marine strike fighter and A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support aircraft are common secondary choices for SEAD missions depending on availability and mission requirements. The advent of 5th-generation fighters has seen somewhat of a return to dedicated role aircraft; while the F-22 Raptor is capable of carrying ground ordinance, the aircraft's primary mission is air superiority unlike the more balanced profile of the F-16 and F/A-18. The upcoming F-35 Lightning II is intended to fulfill the ground strike mission profiles of most current multirole and strike fighter aircraft.

In European NATO air forces, the SEAD mission falls mostly to Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s, German Air Force Tornado Electronic Combat and Reconnaissance variant (ECR), and Aeronautica Militare (AMI) Tornado ECRs. The RAF Tornados rely on the aforementioned ALARM missile and the Italian/German Tornado ECRs employ the AGM-88 HARM missile. The Tornado ECR was designed from the outset as a SEAD platform and is unique in the European NATO air order of battle. Although several European NATO aircraft can carry SEAD weapons, few were designed for, or are specifically tasked with, the dangerous SEAD mission. All modern SEAD aircraft are modified to equip some level of electronic jamming equipment to make the job easier on the pilot.

Aircraft types[edit]

Current types[edit]

Historical types[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ CRS Report for Congress Military Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD): Assessing Future Needs by Christopher Bolkcom, 2005, page 5
  2. ^ Hough, Richard Alexander and Denis Richards, The Battle of Britain: The Greatest Air Battle of World War II, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1989, p. 138-143, 220
  3. ^ Hewitt, William A., Planting the Seeds of SEAD: The Wild Weasel in Vietnam, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, May 1992, p. 5
  4. ^ a b Hewitt, p. 6-9
  5. ^ Bailey, Johnathan B. A., Field Artillery and Firepower, Naval Institute Press, 2004, p.76
  6. ^ Norman Polmar, Thomas B. Allen, World War II: the Encyclopedia of the War Years, 1941-1945, Courier Dover Publications, 2012, p.274-275
  7. ^ Cleaver, Thomas McKelvey, Air Combat Annals, Pacifica Military History, 2011
  8. ^ Brungess, James, Setting the Context - Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint War Fighting in an Uncertain World, Air University Press, June 1994, p.7
  9. ^ Olsen, John Andreas, A History of Air Warfare, Potomac Books, Inc., 2010, p. 89
  10. ^ Olsen, p. 92
  11. ^ Olsen, p. 98-100
  12. ^ Brungess, p. 4-5
  13. ^ a b Brungess, p. 6-8
  14. ^ Bailey, p.77-78
  15. ^ Brungess, p.5
  16. ^ Brungess, p. 6-8
  17. ^ Brungess, p. 104
  18. ^ Vectorsite Sukhoi Su-17 History

External links[edit]