Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was hoping somebody had insight into this. I get the impression that no matter how much gets thrown at the problem the planes always seem to win out.

Put more AA guns on battleships, bring more to defend the homeland, get AA missiles that can shoot something in theory thousands of miles away; you’ve still got them able to act with near impunity. The best counter almost always being your own planes.

You rarely hear about anything more than a single plane being shot down by these weapons. In fact it always seems to be a big deal whenever it actually happens. Whilst anti tank weapons are point and click weapons which can delete a tank instantly. Why aren’t planes more vulnerable given how expensive they are and how difficult it is to train pilots? Shouldn’t it be easier to shoot what’s effectively a totally exposed target in the sky? Shouldn’t missiles be faster and cheaper than planes? Isn’t it easier to train some IT technician to man an AA weapon than a pilot? I don’t really hear people saying that putting anything in the sky is obsolete but people think ground armoured vehicles are on the way out? I know people talk about drones as opposed to manned fighters but that’s not really making planes obsolete; it’s just changing an already untouchable thing.

Is this just a case of AA being an area denial weapon. So, normally, the USAF won’t go anywhere near a prepared AA position without some 4D chess shenanigans. Like in the First Gulf War if they had simply tried to bulldoze their way to Baghdad without any subterfuge they would have lost a lot of planes?

It's the constant game of one upsmanship

make a better bullet somebody will the build better armor, then the arms maker has to make a better bullet-rinse/repeat.

When it comes to AA weapons most ballistic types effectively throw up a wall of shrapnel in front of where the aircraft is suspected to fly. this was later improved by using larger shells, then shells with timed fuses, then radar guided shells then radar guided missiles, then missiles with tracking systems that use radar, laser targeting, infrared/thermal and so on.

Hitting a moving target is VERY hard to do, especially when that target is far away and moving fast. the current system uses a layered defense to protect the attack craft by jamming and counter striking the tracking systems to degrade the effectiveness of the systems. however it is also far cheaper to build ground based AA defensive systems and train those crews so the numbers are easily imbalanced in favor of the AA defenses.

I guess the difference between planes and tanks is also in regards to the manouvre and avoidance options.
tanks beeing groundbound make them dependant on terrain ontop of not beeing able to manouvre up and down for avoidance.

planes basically have a whole dimension of avoidance options more i guess.

Video detailing the air operation at the start of Desert Storm, barring in mind this was 30 years ago, it does detail some of the ways AA is negated, with electronic warfare being a huge factor.

Whilst it doesn't necessarily answer the why of your question, it is a good example of how it literally works and the tactics involved also, as well as the substantial logistics and planning that goes into making air operations as safe as possible.

one thing you have to be aware off is that we have not seen a War of equal technologies for a long time now

hence we have not seen modern up to date AA against up to date airplanes

and until there is a direct war between USA, China or Russia, we won't know what is more effective (as the export versions of the technology from those is weaker)

the original problem is still the same as it was during WW2, if the planes know were the AA is, they can avoid it or kill it before they are in its reach
today with Stealth and Radar dectetion it is the same, the planes know about the AA before it can launch the missiles

why tanks are killed more often is simply because they operate closer to the enemy
and as soon as you are in close combat, you don't need advanced technology to kill something

for the same reason you don't hear very often that artillery is killed as well

Also one role of AA is to keep "weak" flyers away. If you have no AA at all, the enemy can fly over you with everything they want, land troops or even just throw barrel bombs out of unarmored transports. As long as an army still has some AA-guns and Missiles, careful enemies will restrain themselves to the more high tech, armored and high flying parts of their arsenal or even outright avoid the most protected areas of your airspace.

In this way not downing any planes is not necessarily a sign of "failing" their task.

There’s one major factor that a lot of people don’t appreciate, which is that most anti-aircraft missiles are only powered for the first couple of seconds of flight time. It’s not like in films where you have missiles powering around, doing 180 turns, etc.; they’re actually coasting most of the way to the target, which limits their manoeuvrability considerably (essentially a cone from the point of launch). That’s why aircraft are still the most effective anti-aircraft defence (be they manned or unmanned), because they can manoeuvre into a position to give the missile the best possible chance of hitting its target.

Planes have the option to simply fly higher, and the AA guns cannot chase them.

 Jadenim wrote:
There’s one major factor that a lot of people don’t appreciate, which is that most anti-aircraft missiles are only powered for the first couple of seconds of flight time. It’s not like in films where you have missiles powering around, doing 180 turns, etc.; they’re actually coasting most of the way to the target, which limits their manoeuvrability considerably (essentially a cone from the point of launch). That’s why aircraft are still the most effective anti-aircraft defence (be they manned or unmanned), because they can manoeuvre into a position to give the missile the best possible chance of hitting its target.

So is that just a ceiling that caps the technology? You can’t make a missile able to fly the whole way for a reasonable cost that would do its job? That seems pretty poor. I am surprised you could hit a barn door if you’re just sling shotting it like that. One of those imagination versus reality memes I think.

Would there be any work arounds for that which don’t involve putting it on a plane? Is there any way of fueling or directing the warhead cheaply?

Making a missile faster, or with a longer powered flight time or with more steering or a larger warhead

all mean adding weight which means extra fuel which means extra weight etc

so to make a step change in performance will need a new propellant (either lighter or more powerful so you need less) or a new explosive (if it's more powerful you can use less) and the weight saved can be used to boost performance in the area you want

The problem with missiles is the classic problem of rocket propulsion: the heavier it is, the more fuel you need, but the more fuel you add, the heavier it gets... On top of that, you need that missile to be very quick: a modern combat aircraft goes so fast that you don't have a whole lot of time before it'll fly out of range or reach its target. So you can't really have your missile carry tons of fuel for long range, or that'll hurt its speed. And now you have to steer something going around Mach 3... that's not a trivial task.

I'm not sure AA is really as ineffective as it seems, anyway. As it's been said, it's been a long time since there was a conflict pitching two modern militaries against each other. Older AA systems can't compete with the latest aircrafts.

I was just gonna claim Ballistic Skill 1 and be done with it :p

I remember an old paraphrase:
There’s a reason they don’t call them hit-tiles.

Are missiles more effective when fired from aircraft at other aircraft then? I can assume some basics, in that firstly they don't necessarily have to spend flight climbing against gravity which must be some aspect of it in terms of fuel savings, also when launched/released from a moving jet, there will already have some amount of momentum meaning they are not starting at 0 speed.

And does that mean that they have more advanced aspects that allow some manoeuvrability or is that really not all that true that air to air missiles are that agile and capable of adjustment? I would have thought fire and forget air to air really does need to be able to adjust to target manoeuvres but I assume I am wrong about that and have been duped by films.

AA has gotten better and better really to the point where it has exceeded aircraft and missles ability to overpower it.

Stealth tech is about the only effective measure against AA system of today. That and just loading the air with so many planes/ missles enough get through to do damage.

The next effective way to overpower modern STA systems is to outrange them with long range ATS missles. Plane never gets in range to be destroyed and can pick on surface targets with impunity.

If you follow AA in WW2 though. It starts out really ineffective and soon becomes so powerful that planes have to evolve to be considered effective again.

Are missiles more effective when fired from aircraft at other aircraft then? I can assume some basics, in that firstly they don't necessarily have to spend flight climbing against gravity which must be some aspect of it in terms of fuel savings, also when launched/released from a moving jet, there will already have some amount of momentum meaning they are not starting at 0 speed.

That's true, a missile fired from a plane is already going almost as fast as the target and in the right direction (hopefully), so a lot of the work is already done. Plus a fighter can follow its target and have more opportunities to fire. Of course you need ground-based (or ship-based) AA since you can't have planes patrolling everywhere all the time.

And does that mean that they have more advanced aspects that allow some manoeuvrability or is that really not all that true that air to air missiles are that agile and capable of adjustment? I would have thought fire and forget air to air really does need to be able to adjust to target manoeuvres but I assume I am wrong about that and have been duped by films.

Missiles obviously can correct their trajectory and follow their target (otherwise they'd be simple rockets). As far as agility is concerned, they only need to be better than the plane they're targeting; it's not like a fighter can make an instant u-turn. Speed is also a major factor: a missile is meant to approach so fast that manoeuvering in time is almost impossible. Finally, you don't necessarily need to make a direct hit: if the missile detonates close enough the shockwave and the shrapnel can do a lot of damage.

One of the big drivers behind super cruise (travelling above Mach 1 without afterburners) on the 4+ / 5th generation fighter aircraft is the amount of additional energy it imparts to missiles, increasing the lethal range.

As for long range manoeuvrability, the RAF’s new Meteor missile uses a ramjet specifically so that it’s powered for a much greater portion of its flight, although I imagine that they sacrifice short range acceleration for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also modern missiles are generally fire and forget, but that just means that they have self-contained guidance systems that do not require any further input from the launch system so that you can shut-down your radar and/or evade after losing off the round. Heat seekers have been like that since the 50’s, but most radar guided missiles used to require the launcher to illuminate the target with their radar, to give them something to home in on. In either case they are still limited by their propulsion / manoeuvring capabilities. Again some modern heat seekers can do a 180 off the rail, in order to head for an aircraft behind you, but once they’ve done that they’re pretty much done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I was at university one of my avionics lecturers told us about a Serbian Mig-29 In the 90’s who avoided I think it was 3 AMRAAMs fired at long range by clever, aggressive manoeuvres that confused the radar seeker and/or took him outside of the missile’s engagement envelope. He got splashed by the fourth one, but at that point he was only a little over 20nm out from the USAF patrol, which is definitely too close for comfort.

I think this is a case of perception mismatching reality. Anti-aircraft weapon systems are absolutely lethal, more aircraft have been lost to groundfire than to other aircraft - during WW2 your likelyhood of dying as part of the flightcrew of a bomber over Germany was significantly higher than if you were an Infantry Marine in the Pacific Theater. The vast majority of fighter and bomber losses during Vietnam were the result of ground based AA systems.

Keep in mind though, that since Vietnam the US and Western European militaries haven't really fought a large scale war against an actual serious threat in this arena. Everyone we've faced off against was either operating obsolete equipment that we figured out how to jam with almost 100% success rates decades prior, or were operating very small handfuls of modern AA systems that were not available in any quantity to make a difference, (or some combination thereof) especially once they were in the crosshairs of SEAD or strike aircraft and lacked the redundancy needed to counter-engage the threat.

The closest you get to a widespread near-peer scenario since the Vietnam era are the operations we conducted over Iraq during the Gulf War period (which definitely took more than a "single" aircraft out of service), but the problem there was that Iraqs air defense systems were so heavily integrated and centrally controlled that we rendered them useless by simply taking out the links in the kill chain and rendered them largely inoperable without really ever having to engage the majority of air defense systems directly.

which is that most anti-aircraft missiles are only powered for the first couple of seconds of flight time

This is hardly true anymore. In fact in most modern surface-to-air missile systems going back about 15-20 years the opposite is the case, most modern systems are largely initially unguided or controlled from the ground until they enter a terminal phase and become active. The majority of the missiles maneuvers occur within seconds of impact or detonation rather than within seconds of launch.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think this is a case of perception mismatching reality. Anti-aircraft weapon systems are absolutely lethal, more aircraft have been lost to groundfire than to other aircraft - during WW2 your likelyhood of dying as part of the flightcrew of a bomber over Germany was significantly higher than if you were an Infantry Marine in the Pacific Theater. The vast majority of fighter and bomber losses during Vietnam were the result of ground based AA systems.

Keep in mind though, that since Vietnam the US and Western European militaries haven't really fought a large scale war against an actual serious threat in this arena. Everyone we've faced off against was either operating obsolete equipment that we figured out how to jam with almost 100% success rates decades prior, or were operating very small handfuls of modern AA systems that were not available in any quantity to make a difference, (or some combination thereof) especially once they were in the crosshairs of SEAD or strike aircraft and lacked the redundancy needed to counter-engage the threat.

The closest you get to a widespread near-peer scenario since the Vietnam era are the operations we conducted over Iraq during the Gulf War period (which definitely took more than a "single" aircraft out of service), but the problem there was that Iraqs air defense systems were so heavily integrated and centrally controlled that we rendered them useless by simply taking out the links in the kill chain and rendered them largely inoperable without really ever having to engage the majority of air defense systems directly.

which is that most anti-aircraft missiles are only powered for the first couple of seconds of flight time

This is hardly true anymore. In fact in most modern surface-to-air missile systems going back about 15-20 years the opposite is the case, most modern systems are largely initially unguided or controlled from the ground until they enter a terminal phase and become active. The majority of the missiles maneuvers occur within seconds of impact or detonation rather than within seconds of launch.

How would the Iraqi air defence in the Gulf War compared to those in mainland China or Russia today?

Iraq had at best gear designed in the 70s, and upgraded from there- maybe. So their material was at least 20 years out of date compared to the US aircraft. So, say, about 50 years behind current Russia and Chinese gear?

As I understand it, Russia and Chinese technology is broadly speaking about a generation behind American cutting edge equipment in most areas- but not all.

AA is actually extremely effective, and getting more so each year, at least when you look at it in terms of cost.

You also have to consider that the what we usually see in terms of air>ground combat is a lopsided encounter to begin with. Its always a vastly technologically superior airforce against technologically inferior ground units, and even then they still manage to shoot down planes occasionally. The USAF is never attacking entrenched positions with the best and latest SAM weaponry to come out of Russia or China. They don't give out their best toys, they give out the surplus stuff that's been hanging around for 30+ years. And even that still shoots down US planes.

Another point is that US aircraft aren't operating in huge numbers. A strike mission might have 3-4 planes at most. We're not running huge WW2 scale operations with hundreds of planes. They're very small precision attacks often with only 1-2 planes. The fact that planes get shot down at all shows that AA is highly effective.

Even "Stealth" planes are less sneaky than you'd want given their high price tag. A Stealth plane isn't actually invisible on Radar, it just has a weaker signal. A signal which can still be seen if the technician is observant, which they are when fighting US planes because they know about stealth planes. Whats more, often older AA missiles are better at killing Stealth planes than a modern one because older missiles usually use heat tracking instead of radar, and stealth does nothing to stop a heat seeker.

In the event of another major war between major powers, air casualties would be enormous because even older AA is still quite effective and modern aircraft are operated in far fewer numbers than they used to. Such a war would quickly see modern aircraft either be grounded or simply destroyed faster than they could be replaced. Which would effectively remove them as viable weaponry.

The modern USAF has a little over 5000 planes, most of which are NOT combat aircraft. The US in WW2 had around 150,000 combat aircraft between the USAAF and the Marine Corps. The few thousand combat aircraft the US, China, and Russia have would pretty much either be destroyed or maintained in reserves that would never be committed because they'd be too valuable to lose, and new production would be too slow to keep up with losses. The same with missiles in general too actually, though there are far more SAM missiles than aircraft for them to shoot down so they'd come out on top in the long run.

There are only 395 F-35s in existence right now. There are only 3200 F-16s remaining. That's the global total, not just the US. A real shooting war would gobble those numbers up in the first few weeks with absolutely no ability to replace them. F-35s also cannot be repaired in the field, they have to return to the factory for any substantial damage because the design is too complex. Its the same problem the Germans had in WW2 with many of their tanks, they were not designed for anything other than minor repair and maintenance in the field.

@chaos0xomega I think we’re talking slightly cross-purposes here; yes, there have been an awful lot of losses to AA, but it never stopped an air campaign. From WW2 through Korea, Vietnam to the Falklands (probably the last time you had modern military forces operating with something approaching parity) the bomber always gets through and even with punishing losses it’s never been enough to make someone give up and go home, which I think was one of the main points the OP was questioning.

Actually at Totalwar1402, I think you actually got it in your last paragraph:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

Is this just a case of AA being an area denial weapon. So, normally, the USAF won’t go anywhere near a prepared AA position without some 4D chess shenanigans.

Air defences are very effective, but can’t cover everywhere, so there’s a whole game of finding and hitting the weakest points (same as most military tactics to be honest). I also wouldn’t buy into the “tanks are obsolete” stuff that’s going around in the British press at the moment, that’s just political bs from the government to try and justify yet more cuts to the armed forces.

 Jadenim wrote:
@chaos0xomega I think we’re talking slightly cross-purposes here; yes, there have been an awful lot of losses to AA, but it never stopped an air campaign. From WW2 through Korea, Vietnam to the Falklands (probably the last time you had modern military forces operating with something approaching parity) the bomber always gets through and even with punishing losses it’s never been enough to make someone give up and go home, which I think was one of the main points the OP was questioning.

Germany actually had to give up their bombing of England in WW2 because they lost way too many planes. I don't know how much is due to air-to-air combat and how much is due to ground AA, but they completely lost their air superiority at that point (and never got it back).

On the allies' side, they had to switch to night raids, large formation flying and bombing from high altitude. It didn't stop the bombings, but it really hurt their accuracy. I heard so many stories from my older relatives that went "they wanted to hit the factory but they razed [random civilian building] instead."

 Tiennos wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
@chaos0xomega I think we’re talking slightly cross-purposes here; yes, there have been an awful lot of losses to AA, but it never stopped an air campaign. From WW2 through Korea, Vietnam to the Falklands (probably the last time you had modern military forces operating with something approaching parity) the bomber always gets through and even with punishing losses it’s never been enough to make someone give up and go home, which I think was one of the main points the OP was questioning.

Germany actually had to give up their bombing of England in WW2 because they lost way too many planes. I don't know how much is due to air-to-air combat and how much is due to ground AA, but they completely lost their air superiority at that point (and never got it back).

On the allies' side, they had to switch to night raids, large formation flying and bombing from high altitude. It didn't stop the bombings, but it really hurt their accuracy. I heard so many stories from my older relatives that went "they wanted to hit the factory but they razed [random civilian building] instead."

[accuracy] Laughs in Schaffhausen south of the Rhine, beeing flattened by the mericans.

 Tiennos wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
@chaos0xomega I think we’re talking slightly cross-purposes here; yes, there have been an awful lot of losses to AA, but it never stopped an air campaign. From WW2 through Korea, Vietnam to the Falklands (probably the last time you had modern military forces operating with something approaching parity) the bomber always gets through and even with punishing losses it’s never been enough to make someone give up and go home, which I think was one of the main points the OP was questioning.

Germany actually had to give up their bombing of England in WW2 because they lost way too many planes. I don't know how much is due to air-to-air combat and how much is due to ground AA, but they completely lost their air superiority at that point (and never got it back).

On the allies' side, they had to switch to night raids, large formation flying and bombing from high altitude. It didn't stop the bombings, but it really hurt their accuracy. I heard so many stories from my older relatives that went "they wanted to hit the factory but they razed [random civilian building] instead."

The Germans were still launching raids until 1944 and the reason they stopped wasn’t because the RAFs air defences prevented them but because the allies offensive operations had battered their production and supply capacities. Also by that point they had the V1 and V2, the latter of which caused huge casualties and for which we had no defence (and arguably still don’t!)

 Jadenim wrote:
The Germans were still launching raids until 1944 and the reason they stopped wasn’t because the RAFs air defences prevented them but because the allies offensive operations had battered their production and supply capacities. Also by that point they had the V1 and V2, the latter of which caused huge casualties and for which we had no defence (and arguably still don’t!)

Actually there are defenses against ballistic missiles. And it's more missiles! I'm not sure how reliable today's anti-ballistic missiles are against today's ballistic missiles, but they'd probably get rid of a V2 without any issue.

But back to the blitz: the Germans' goal was to prepare an invasion or at least get an armistice out of the UK. British air defenses forced them to give up on that. Later raids were "retaliatory" without any major strategic objectives and they took massive losses as British AA defenses improved. During those last raids in 1944, Germany lost about 60% of the bombers they sent.

It's particularly baffling in conflicts like Libya and Syria where up to date Russian flaks are used by many and get casually destroyed by turkish unmanned aircrafts

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I was hoping somebody had insight into this. I get the impression that no matter how much gets thrown at the problem the planes always seem to win out.

Put more AA guns on battleships, bring more to defend the homeland, get AA missiles that can shoot something in theory thousands of miles away; you’ve still got them able to act with near impunity. The best counter almost always being your own planes.

You rarely hear about anything more than a single plane being shot down by these weapons. In fact it always seems to be a big deal whenever it actually happens. Whilst anti tank weapons are point and click weapons which can delete a tank instantly. Why aren’t planes more vulnerable given how expensive they are and how difficult it is to train pilots? Shouldn’t it be easier to shoot what’s effectively a totally exposed target in the sky? Shouldn’t missiles be faster and cheaper than planes? Isn’t it easier to train some IT technician to man an AA weapon than a pilot? I don’t really hear people saying that putting anything in the sky is obsolete but people think ground armoured vehicles are on the way out? I know people talk about drones as opposed to manned fighters but that’s not really making planes obsolete; it’s just changing an already untouchable thing.

Is this just a case of AA being an area denial weapon. So, normally, the USAF won’t go anywhere near a prepared AA position without some 4D chess shenanigans. Like in the First Gulf War if they had simply tried to bulldoze their way to Baghdad without any subterfuge they would have lost a lot of planes?

Part of this is comparing the USAF to everything. The USAF is the largest, most capable, most advanced force on the planet, and in pretty much all modern cases (such as the Gulf War) has pretty much only engaged substantially inferior opponents, and been able to do so on its own terms. If there's a strong chance that aircraft will be lost, they don't fly generally speaking. If one study's the Gulf war, there was an intense effort that formed its own unique part of the war to destroy Iraqi air defenses that enabled the rest of the conflict to go as it did, so a lot of effort was put into achieving that air supremacy from the outset. That it looks like an unstoppable one-sided curbstomp should be no surprise in such a situation. That said, there's also a reason the USAF doesn't test the Moscow air defenses with stealth aircraft thinking they're too sneaky to get shot down, nobody is under any illusion that the Moscow air defense networks won't make short work of them. Modern combat hasn't really seen air forces of equal measure engage each other at full capability, we're seeing superpowers (or people with superpower toys) picking on small fry.

That said, there is something to be said for AA weapons being overblown, modern jet aircraft with proper support are extremely difficult to shoot down *if* the pilot is aware they are under attack, being able to maneuver at high speed in 3 dimensions makes them painfully difficult to engage. Missiles are faster and cheaper, but need to cover lots of distance, usually tell the target they're being attacked, have a limited fuel burn time, cannot maneuver that much (they're not able to chase planes through radical course changes like is often seen in movies), can be confused or redirected, etc. The launchers are usually static emplacements that announce themselves to the whole world when operating (making them prime targets themselves), and are complex expensive systems themselves, and often/usually don't have their radars actively searching for and acquiring targets because it makes them easy to attack in turn. AA guns can be very capable, but only within a limited range, which is less than most modern jet combat aircraft fly at.

Additionally, anti-tank weapons aren't all just point click delete either, and there are lots of tales of tanks weathering firepower and taking literally dozens of RPG hits that would turn entire squadrons of aircraft to junk (there's many battlefield weapons that can kill an Abrams but almost none that will penetrate the frontal turret armor for instance, and if the enemy isn't able to engage anything but the turret, it makes the tank very difficult to kill) and newer active protection systems and hard-kill interceptors are looking to make many common AT weapons substantially less effective.

Here's some pretty well researched videos on the subject, the one posted earlier from the Operations Room about the Gulf War is also excellent

 Tiennos wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
The Germans were still launching raids until 1944 and the reason they stopped wasn’t because the RAFs air defences prevented them but because the allies offensive operations had battered their production and supply capacities. Also by that point they had the V1 and V2, the latter of which caused huge casualties and for which we had no defence (and arguably still don’t!)

Actually there are defenses against ballistic missiles. And it's more missiles! I'm not sure how reliable today's anti-ballistic missiles are against today's ballistic missiles, but they'd probably get rid of a V2 without any issue.

But back to the blitz: the Germans' goal was to prepare an invasion or at least get an armistice out of the UK. British air defenses forced them to give up on that. Later raids were "retaliatory" without any major strategic objectives and they took massive losses as British AA defenses improved. During those last raids in 1944, Germany lost about 60% of the bombers they sent.

To be clear, I specifically meant that the UK doesn’t currently have an anti-ballistic missile capability (there was some proposals to upgrade the Sea Viper on the Type 45s and I think there’s a land-based viper variant to replace Rapier in the works, but neither is in-service at the moment as far as I’m aware.)