I open this topic for my all time favourite SAM system.
The S-300PS Volhov-M6 (export version S-300PMU) [SA-10B Grumble] is the ultimate Soviet SAM system of the '80s.

After synthesizing all the lessons learned during the conflicts of the '60~'70s, Soviet union developed the first 'double digit' SAM, answering all the challenges depicted in the SAM SIMULATOR situations...

- completely mobile system, capable of shooting 5 minutes after stop
- can engage 6 targets parallelly, with 12 missiles (doing Mach6!!!)
- 48 ready to launch missiles, no missile reload time
- 75km range (with V-500R 5V55R)
- hard (almost impossible) to jam V-500R 5V55R (Grumble Mod.1) missiles
- hard to find RPN (fire control radar), only the targeted plane can detect the digitally controlled, narrow pencil-beam
- automatical HARM detection, and acquisition
- detecting ultra low flying targets
- easy to use digital interface

The S-300P (‘P’ as PVO – Homeland Air Defense) is the first multichannel SAM system developed by Almaz TsKB under the leadership of B. V. Bunkin.

It was the first Soviet SAM system that used phased array fire control radar, and missile seeker aided ground guidance, capable of firing only 5 minutes after stopping.

The first towed version S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A Grumble) was fielded in 1979, replacing the S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild) batteries around Moscow.



The first mobile version S-300PS Volhov-M6 (SA-10B Grumble) was fielded in 1983 replacing the S-75M Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) and S-125M Neva (SA-3B Goa) batteries, and exported outside of the former Soviet Union from 1988 as the S-300PMU (SA-10B Grumble) into Bulgaria, China, and Czechoslovakia.





Second generation of the S-300P is fielded from 1989, as the S-300PM Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle), and exported in two versions. The S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) is shipped from 1994, into China, Greece, and Vietnam. The S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) is shipped from 2004 into China.




Third generation of the S-300P is fielded in Russia from 2007 replacing the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) batteries, as the S-400 Triumph (SA-21 Growler).

Hungary planned to field two S-300PMU batteries during the 1990’s, but the Cold War ended.

At the left sits the Firing Officer, before a matrix of 6 targets (horizontal) and 4 group of launchers (4x4 vertical) indicators.
He pairs the missile to the target, then launch it.

At the center, sits the Target Acquisition Officer.
He acquires the target on the lower (smaller) rectangular screen, then assigns it to one of the 6 target channels (above larger screen).

Right of the picture sits the Range Officer.
He can acquire, and manually track one target in range.

There are two workstations right of him, with two Angle Officers.
They can acquire, and manually track one target in angle.

Best book so far...

Der Fla-Raketenkomplex S-300PMU in der NVA



Also...

http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_01.pdf
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_02.pdf

Do you have also pictures of panels of those angle officers?

here

The Sa-10b system have capabilitys against tactical ballistic missiles like Frog-7 or scud?

The S-300PS/PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) can hit the SCUD in theory, as good as the Patriot was able during the first Gulf War...
(any target with the speed of 1200m/s)

... but the S-300PM/PMU1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) is designed from scratch to be able to kill it.
(any target with the speed of 2800m/s)

ATBM Capability
Testing of new capabilities for the S-300P and S-300PM continued even after the S-300PM entered service. The most significant testing occurred in the aftermath of Operation DESERT STORM.
Almaz and Fakel engineers had examined the performance of the American PATRIOT missile system during SCUD missile intercepts and found that the PATRIOT was not nearly as effective as was needed to defend a large populated area. Accuracy was not the issue; PATRIOT missiles consistently found their targets. The problem was one of target destruction.
When the PATRIOT missile warheads detonated, they often simply knocked the SCUD off its flight path without destroying the inbound warhead. When defending an isolated facility, this would be sufficient. However, intercepts attempted by Israeli PATRIOT batteries were of particular interest to the Russian engineers. Often times the inbound warheads still landed in populated areas. To be truly effective in an ATBM capacity, a SAM system would have to destroy the warhead in-flight.
Testing of various S-300P variants at both Sary Shagan and Kapustin Yar proved that the system did have the ability to intercept tactical ballistic missiles at various ranges, depending on the missile system employed and the speed of the incoming target. Fakel MKB engineers, however, developed an even more effective solution in the aftermath of DESERT STORM: a special warhead designed to cause the inbound warhead to detonate in-flight.
The first test firing of the modified warhead occurred in August of 1995 at Kapustin Yar. The missile's warhead successfully caused the warhead of the 8K14 target to detonate in the atmosphere. The missile employed a directional warhead, which is roughly analogous to a shaped charge system insofar as it is able to direct the bulk of the explosive force of the warhead towards the target.

And against it the NATO could use the medium altitude attacks like in Serbia or would have to return to their low attack tactics? (Tornado, F-111)

Serbia planned to field 3 battery S-300PMU1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) in 1999, but the shipment was blocked on the Hungarian border.

Does SA-10 target tracking radar is a CW radar? How it works with 0 degrees radial speed targets?

I'd like to know this too. I thought the SA-10 would be a monopulse radar, but I don't understand how you can manually track a target using a monopulse radar.

I'm confused.

You can manually follow target returns with tracking gates velocity or range (CW or Monopulse) while follow manually in azimuth watching PPI screen or
with the use of a camera (day/night).

But the missile on air is NOT in zero Doppler position !!! It gets reruns from target illumination.
The main issue is to some how illuminate the target...

Good open source info...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/t4bfjzc6ayfnl8x/The_S-300_and_S-400.pdf

According to the monograph linked above (page 13), the RPN can track targets with radial speed between 50~1200m/s.

So anything flying under 180km/h, cannot be tracked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust

So technically, only the firing and target acquisition officers are needed for normal operation? How does the firing officer "pair" targets? is it just pressing and holding down on the channel button, and then pressing the fire button to fire, or is it something else?

This also meant if the target beaming the SA-10B lose tracking, and missiles go ballistic???

There is no official material available, and open source ones are contradicting...
... so handle it with grain of salt.

3 launcher groups are available, with 3 launchers each (total 36 missiles).
At the 2nd top row, you can see 12 selectable missiles.


The Firing Officer assigns 2 missiles from the 12, against the 6th target.
Now you have only 10 selectable at the 2nd top row, and 2 assigned against target 6.


Missile launched.

It has a phase modulated monopulse radar, with 3 antenna groups.
(FA-110, FA-130, FA-140)


While the analogue, single target tracking monopulse sets are precisely keeping the target in the center of the pencil beam, the digitally aimed pencil beam is following in steps rather than continuously tracking.
Here the monopulse method is used to decide, where the target is located from the center of the beam.

S-400 Serial production
http://englishrussia.com/2014/01/27/modern-russian-technology-park/

Failed launch....

Vietnam is missing...

Five S-300PS battery anyone for free?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140131/...-of-Charge.html

I guess that means S-300 PS is not really effective at those days...

I cannot see ANY situation, where I would like to sit inside of an (S-25M, S-60, SA-75M, S-75M, S-125M, S-200V, ZSU-23M, 2K11M, 2K12M, 9K31, 9K33, 9K35, MIM-14, MIM-23)* instead of the F-2 cabin of the S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) system.

All the collected experiences of the battles between 1960~'80 were incorporated into THIS SYSTEM.
(everything you could ever wish for, playing SAMSIM situations)

Even the US Wild Weasels called them as the "Double Digit SAMs", to differentiate it, as a completely other league.

*except MIM-104

One comment from the Hungarian forum...
...it is somehow better to kill Chinese fighters over Kazakhstan inbound of Russia.



Completely agree.

I want to find out!!!!

SA-2E giving target acquisition data for SA-10 against slow drone against a wind.....




'80 was before >24 years..... It seems than SAM-s are a weapon of yesterday (SA-2 against fighters; SA-6 against ALE decoys; SA-10 against ~0 radial speed targets or ALE)....

Yes, but in 80's its a very advanced weapon. But in the present we don't know what the real capabilitys of the most modern aircrafts or SAMs.

I really don't know the f-22 is really a ghost, or the S-400 could fight with it.

^^^^

That is a sort of tricky thing to answer. The S400 would eventually detect the F-22, yes. But how far?

The F-22 can release 8 SDBs from 50-60nm to bombard the SAM with, and it can also jam it. The small radar signature of the fighter also means the missile seeker will have problems.

What if there is more than 1 F-22, incoming on multiple angles, and support jammers lessening the sensitivity of the S400?

Of course, S400 will not be alone and will also be equipped with decoys to help it fight, and assistance from own air force etc.

And those eight SDBs aren't stealthy, and because they're just gliding they're not fast and they can't sneak up on the SAM site at low level. They'll approach the site at medium altitude, slowly. They're sitting ducks, very easy to shoot down.

Though they only cost $90,000. So I guess you could just keep releasing hundreds of them till the enemy runs out of expensive missiles.

Not necessarily expensive... Pantsir and Tor should be there to take out those bombs. Assuming enemy is able to pinpoint the location of SAM site.

I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of SDBs to be shot down in-flight by any air defence system (being it S-400, Pantsir, Tor, etc...). SDBs (Small diameter bombs) like the name indicates are very small bombs which means they have a very small RCS, which should make them "stealth" or "almost stealth".

Besides I have yet to see any defence system to be effective at shooting down any smart weapons (Paveway or JDAMs for example) specially outside a "non-controlled" environment (i.e. a test environment) or resuming in a real combat scenario/environment.
Anyway even if I'm proven to be wrong with my statements above, one can also use a F-35 equipped with JSOW (which have a similar range of a SDB and it's truly a stealth weapon) to engage those S-400 (or any other air defence system for that matter).

You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!

If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!

If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!

Basically the SDB has to get close enough to the S-400 that the SAM site won't be able to react in time to the SDB before it hits the site. I don't know for sure how fast SDBs are, but I guess they are slow, they're just glide bombs. So maybe 200m/s. So even 4km away would give the S-400 twenty seconds to react. At 4km the radar reflections of even a small stealthy target are going to be huge and easy to detect.

How comes that JSOW is a stealth weapon ?
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !

According to several sources. Here's an example:
http://www.deagel.com/Standoff-Weapons/AGM-154A-JSOW_a001153001.aspx

"JSOW also features low-signature/stealth design to engage actively defended targets"

Also by looking closely at the JSOW airframe, it seems clear (at least to me) that it has a stealth design.




Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!

No, I didn't forget about range factor and that any Stealth object can be detected by any radar when it's close enough to the radar source.
I also didn't say that the S-400 (or other air defence systems, BTW) could never shot down SDBs, actually I believe it can, at least in theory but only in "ideal" conditions and in wartime conditions are usually very far from "ideal".

A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...

Are you sure with the numbers?

Yup, I'm sure.

Radar signals have to make a two way journey, so they fall off at the square of the distance on the way to the aircraft, then the reflections fall off at the square of the distance on the way back to the radar receiver. Squared twice is fourth power. distance²² = distance^4

It makes radar detection REALLY dependent on range.

Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1?

See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles.

But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out.

At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.

Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.

Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped).

Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99.

One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough.

(One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword...
... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)

I guess he means MALD decoys.... May moderators move those posts in new topic...., like "Modern air defense", or similar ?

Thanks God that till now my country didn't start world war III and won't face the above scenario ...

PS:1. TOR-m1 is an element in the intergrated Air Defence of NATO ,among many others.
2.Yes,i have participated many times in missions designed to protect/penetrate air deference assets.Do you ?

Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.

I agree with GrayGhost. Jamming and how it's employed is one of those many factors/variables that makes real wartime scenarios very different from peace time training/exercises scenarios.

Don't forget that countries such as US (at least the US Navy) and Australia (among other countries) will still really on jamming aircraft in the future, in the case of the US Navy and Australian Air Force (RAAF) with the F/A-18G Growler.

Also don't forget that modern aircraft equipped with AESA radars such as the F-22 and F-35 will have self standoff jamming capabilities using their AESA radars (and on board jamming equipment of course).

I assume that you have not clearly realized that SAMSIM is not just another simulator and some people try to contribute it with infos coming from real world and not from what you can find on the Internet or to other flight sims...
So SAMSIM is my concern and I stick to it._

S-300PMU2

S-400

Interesting video about anti advance sam weapons and tactics

This is the main difference between S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) 48N6 missile (150km max range), and S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) 48N6D missile (200km max range).

What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?

box - kiling zone
circles - missiles

A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives

And targets (dots) with their movement vectors.

The killing zone is for the missile/system (that's why you can see target movement vectors). And it is indicative - it is for a given probability, even target outside of it may be hit....

The killing zone/in range zone is very specific and very important computation on the FC computer and not something indicative.
Also it (killing zone) has nothing to do with killing probabilities.

So,target vectoring is calculated in acquisition mode and killing zone in tracking mode.

This is the missile killing zone (same against each type of target), not the missile firing zone (depending on target speed and parameter).

The missile killing zone is displayed on the round display (right), while target specific firing zone is displayed on the rectangular (left) display.



The missile killing zone display has vertical and horizontal view...

Yes, like Hpasp said.
And it has something to do with probability - in most cases target will be hit inside of this envelope. With some probability target will not be hit at all and some time target outside of this envelope can be also hit. When missile for example reach maximum range, it will not hit the wall :-) and it may hit target.

The displayed killing zone in the Soviet systems are generally calculated as X% (system specific) killing probability of a non jamming, non maneuvering (straight flying) target.

X%
Dvina - 96% - with 3 missiles
Volhov - 99% - with 3 missiles
Neva - 98% - with 2 missiles
Vega - 98% - with 3 missiles
KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile

A much smaller zone is also calculated, where maneuvering but non jamming target could be killed with the same, system specific probability.

Thanks for the infos.West systems (like hawk) do not calculate hit probabilities.
But still (I believe) these calculations are not real feedbacks ,just indications for the operators to fire at will

Very informative!Thank you.

For example the S-75M3 Volhov APP, displays the killing zone of the V755 missile against non maneuvering, non jamming target. (99% kill probability with 3 missile salvo, based on firing range data)

Against maneuvering (3~4g) non jamming target, you need to reduce your max killing range with 10~15km. (99% kill probability with 3 missile salvo, based on firing range data)

In case of using the V759 missile against maneuvering (5~6g ) non jamming target, all APP displayed distances should be reduced further with ~5km.

Hpasp.
The missile kill zone is the same always ???
The missile flight time,yes.
If the target is maneuvering the missile do the same and so the zone changes .

Am I missing something

Pretty optimistic (especially Krug... Agreed for VEGA!)

KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile against straight flying - non jamming target.

I really expected this comment, and it is a valid one.

If we remember, the S-75M Volhov maximum killing range is...
Vtarget<Mach1 - 56km
Vtarget<Mach2 - 43km
Vtarget<Mach3 - 40km
... depending on target speed, so you are correct.

But this is valid only if the missile-target speed range is comparable.
(Missile 2.6~4Mach, target 1~3Mach)

With the S-300 the missile speed is (6Mach) well above the expected air breathing target speed (4Mach).

In case you have ballistic missile target (9Mach), your range would be again (similarly) reduced to 40km from the original 150km.

+1

Based on Hpasp's suggestion I've read that some time ago. It's not as much detailed on the switch-for-switch operation of the FlA-Raketenkomplex, but more on the oddities of the system comparet to its electronic valve-based forefathers, the military organization of Eastern Germany and how its air defense soldiers experienced the last days of Eastern Germany.
On line of thought very clearly gets transported throughout the book, though: How - forgive me the rude term - blue-balled the German soldiers felt were when they finally got the air defense system they've ever dreamed of, only to have to return it after a long time of training and a few months after it entered service.

How to block an S-300PS battery without extensive EW/Weasel Support, presented by Russia...




corrected PS

Acoording to Cold War-era Russian saying, "The best air defence is your tank at enemy's airfield"

P. S.: i'd say it's ordinary Soviet-era S-300PS, not PMU-1...

Seems to be a technical battery...
- no launchers
- no RPC
- lots of TZM
- one NVO
- two 40V6 mast
- lots of Diesel vans
- lots of repair cabins

Meanwhile in Ashuluk...
http://englishrussia.com/2014/04/28/air-defense-drill-in-ashuluk

hpasp.... sa-10b does armed with TOV ?

nope

You SAMSIM players had the unique possibility to fight and survive most of the SAM battles of the last half century of the COLDWAR best equipment (SA-2E/F, SA-3B, SA-4B, SA-5B, SA-8B, ZSU-23-4V1).

Can I ask you to list the features you missed during your battles from your system most?

The things I'm guessing every SAM crew wants: Longer range, better radars, and the ability to track, lock on to and engage targets in "stealth", without enemy aircraft being able to detect what I'm up to or lob ARMs at me.

It's asking a lot, but low ambitions have rarely furthered technology.

Ok, just wanted to ask specific topics of the SA-2E/F, SA-3B, SA-4B, SA-5B, SA-8B, ZSU-23-4V1 systems, where you as a user felt it could be improved.

Woops, silly me!

For the Shilka, I'm really looking forward to perhaps getting an optical sight. It'd be fun to see the tracers flying out with that RoF.

Ukr Gas

Failed launch...

+1

Good old S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A) panel...

+++++++ hpasp
the pictures really talking to me that we will have great untique thing in the future

and one another thing.. would u discuss aboyt sa-10A for us ?
i think this is good subject that you can doing good maneuvering on it !

what are the diffrents between this one and m3volhov ?
guidance method ? tracking channel ?

I have absolutely no documentation about the S-300.

Hungary never got it, and our information source...
http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/
... has nothing about it.

@Hpasp

Something that's kind of confounded us on the Baloogan Campaign Chat is the operational status of the 40N6 missile for the SA-21/S-400. Have you been able to find even mock-up images of the missile? Do you think it would require a 2 tube TEL like the SA-23B/9M92M?

I have not seen 40N6, but I believe that it fits to the standard "300P" type missile container.



From kinematic point of view, even the Mach7 48N6 (missile of the S-300PMU-1 SA-20A) can fly (ballistic) over 300km.
The problem is the fire control radar (still a PESA) maximum target acquisition range, and the endgame target illumination for the SAGG.



Don't you mix it with the S-500 system? (Russian THAAD)



Great reading from Sean...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/8q2q6e9qq8o2c9b/The_S-300_and_S-400_.pdf

The 48N6 series of missiles seemed like a fairly tight fit for the S-300-series tube, so I had a difficult time imagining a missile with purportedly twice the range being squeezed into it (unless they went with the SA-23B solution):



Have you heard anything about Russian CEC? Seems like you could run into the same problem with the SA-5/S-200 if a contact simply dived below the radar horizon once it ascertained a launch and having now way to feed mid-course updates with something like a CEC-capable AWACS or JLENS.

From kinematic point of view, you need exactly the same sized missile, but with different guidance method, or with a more powerful fire control radar. (aka AN/MPQ-53 vs AN/MPQ-65 of the Patriot)

Mid-course update is simply not an option for an (aerodynamically controlled) SAM flying ballistic path, of a range in excess of 150km. (no air)

Thanks for the link, Hpasp. Easily the best piece of English literature on the system I've seen.

Interesting excerpt regarding CEC:



Should keep an eye out for deep upgrade programs for the A-50U fleet a la the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for exactly this purpose.

Agree, we badly need Russian sources on this topic...

I apologise if me saying that seems arrogant. I just find it easier to read technical descriptions in plain English rather than after having plugged in a Russian source into Google Translate.

First step on the way of understanding your point of interest (opponent), is the understanding of his language*.
(you simply cannot save this investment, if your interest is really serious...)




Strongly disagree, as I never heared of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye giving mid-course update commands for any Patriot category missile...
... IMHO a pure un-educated speculation.


*My native Hungarian language is from the Finno-Ugric family, having less similarity to Slavic languages, than others...

The E-2D is intended to provide targeting information to the SM-6, see here and here. This data is accurate enough to provide targeting information to the launching ship, enabling midcourse updates similar to those employed by SM-2 (via the CEC datalink), just against targets beyond the radar horizon (Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 5e, p. 175).

A similar capability for either IADS surface EW elements or for A-50/A-100 would be similarly valuable for 40N6, and probably for 48N6 as well, if an active radar seeker was developed for it.

If you drop the requirement of SAGG endgame guidance, and you are capable of creating an active guidance package (real one, not just marketing), than it is doable...
... just took the US over a decade to develop AMRAAM, and still nobody could reliably replicate it.

Using the AMRAAM as an endgame solution, you can even build a complete SAM system without any Fire Control Radar!

like NASAMS

Because I'm ignorant of the system, couldn't R-77 be used in much the same way as AMRAAM? The US bolted the AMRAAM's seeker onto SM-2 ER, so why couldn't the Russians attach an R-77 seeker onto 48N6 etc?

I have heard that R-77 has only been produced in small numbers, but doesn't it have similar performance to the AMRAAM?

R-77 is at best comparable to 120A, and that missile got dumped within a couple of years of production yielding its place to the 120B, and then successive variants of the 120C.

The AMRAAM seeker was not 'bolted onto the SM-2ER'. The SM-6 seeker some form of derivative of the AMRAAM seeker, but it's not like you can take one right off the 120 and stick it onto an SM-6.

@Hpasp: Because PATRIOT uses link-16, in theory you could use an 'off board source' for MCUs, ie. receive position from datalink, then generate the missile MCU transmission. There may be reasons why you want to do something like this, but given that all the long-ranged PATRIOT missiles are SARH/TVM anyway ... what's the point

Yes, I agree, R-77 is inferior to most AMRAAMs. However, R-77 provides evidence that the Russians have the ability to produce operational ARH seekers, and could probably be used as a base for an ARH 48N6, unless there's something more fundamental about R-77 that I'm missing.



I was engaging in some minor hyperbole - you obviously can't swap around seekers like that. SM-6 does demonstrate that the sensor technology is not entirely orthogonal, though, in that an ARH AAM seeker system was developed into a ARC SAM seeker. Is there some difference between the AMRAAM seeker and the R-77 seeker that makes this easier for the former and more difficult for the latter?

The R-77 is their first-gen attempt at miniaturizing an ARH seeker. The R-37 has one (... has it actually entered service though, or is it still cancelled?).

As for the 48N6, part of the reason why they don't use ARH is cost. The PAC-3 and I believe 9M96/E are ARH, and they're specifically used as hit-to-kill (At least PAC-3 is) with the explosive payload used to increase kill probability.

The larger missiles like 48N6 don't need the accuracy of the other two, and instead can be driven more efficiently within a larger error of their targets - the warhead takes care of the rest.

That's my assumption anyway.



Sure, the technology is based heavily on the 120, much like some proposals for certain missile upgrade (R-27EA) were based on R-77. But I don't think anyone's looking at that particular incarnation of the seeker any more.

As for differences? Like I said ... R-77 is at best comparable to AIM-120A, so you could go as far as assuming that that incarnation of the seeker wasn't even reprogrammable - you had to swap out parts to change how it works. It makes more sense to develop something better for today's threats, IMHO.

Since SARH/TVM FCRs and illuminators are still limited by LOS, I think it would behoove an IADS to fully utilise the range advantage they have against targets that are flying below the radar horizon (assuming a ship-board radar for example, a target flying about 500ft above the deck could probably only be detected and engaged <40nm out using the ship's own sensors). For instance with some airborne radar (be it AWACS or some form of aerostat) you could probably station your SAMs closer to your shore and engage sea-skimming cruise missiles further out with ARH SAMs like 40N6 or ERAM SM-6.

Unless you use non-aerodynamic controls, such as small rocket motors, employed on ERINT, 9M96 or Aster missiles...

Russians are still having a lot of problems with their ARH seekers. The RVV-AE (export version of R-77) uses large number of western components, which is acceptable for countries that buy them, but not for Russian Air Force. That's why RuAF never acquired any sizeable amounts of these missiles. Now they're trying to create all-indigenous ARH head for new RVV-SD AAM, but this work is very far from completion.
SAMs are not in any better situation: the 9M96, until recently, was unable to hit anything. 40N6 flew with ARH made in 1994, and they are struggling to build a new one. The OTH capability was conceived for 40N6 from the very beginning - without it, the 400 km range would have been useless. But use of external target designation puts an extra demand on the missile's seeker. For example, Aster missiles require target position updates every second, while such systems as Russian IADS or U. S. Link-16 has a lag of up to 10 seconds. In this case, the missile's seeker should be far more powerful and capable, closer in performance to the fighter aircraft's radar.


Indeed, small 9M96 cost about twice as much as much larger 48N6.

The missile size does not counts here...

Sale prices of Patriot missiles, per piece:

TWM types
80..84 - MIM-104A Standard - 1mUSD
90..94 - MIM-104C PAC-2 - 1mUSD
05..11 - MIM-104C PAC-2 upgrade to MIM-104E GEM+ - 0.45mUSD

Active guidance
02..14 - MIM-104F PAC-3 - 3~4.5mUSD

That's exactly my point. Electronics is about 70-80% of the cost for these missiles.

S-300PS (SA-10B) operation panel

Nice, do you have some description of indicators?

Theoretically 6 person works in the F-2 cabin.
From let to right: firing officer, target acquisition officer, and 3 manual trackers (range, and two angles).
Behind them sits/stands the commander.

I think, that we discussed the indicators earlier at the beginning of this topic...

Thanks, I meant if you have some more detailed description.

The lower indicator of target acquisition officer, what does it display? What is the process of target acquisition? Green/red buttons right to the upper indicator assigns/releases target to the particular channel?
What does the upper indicator display? Something like Vega indicator which shows target, missile and other positions?

Range officer - there are three indicators similar to Vega's D-V indicator. Why three? And what about the upper indicator?

I would concentrate on the two most important workplaces, the Firing Officer (left), and the Target Acquisition Officer (right).

As I never seen original Soviet manuals, take my best guesses with a grain of salt.



On the desk of the Firing Officer (left), you can see a round (white) mapping display of the targets, and missiles tracked by the RPN (Flap Lid). Right beside the (white) round display, you have a wheel to rotate the RPN (Flap Lid) antenna in Azimuth, and above the wheel a mechanical instrument displaying its present direction.

At the lower part of the Firing Officer panel, you can see your 4 firing unit, each having 1 5P85S and two 5P85D launcher.
Each launcher have 4 missiles either 5V55K or 5V55R type. One firing unit can handle/prepare 4 missiles at a time from the available 12 per unit.

At the upper part of the Firing Officer panel, you can see the target/missile matrix.
6 targets (horizontal) shall be paired by two missiles each (vertical) using the green buttons.
Red buttons are for launching, you press the target channel button at the left first, hold it, and press the missile launch red one below the matrix. (similarly to the Vega procedure)

On the desk of the Target Acquisition Officer (right), you can see a round (orange) display of the NVO (Clam Shell), you have a wheel to rotate acquire low incoming targets in Azimuth for the RPN.

The gray smaller screen at the lower part of the Target Acquisition Officer panel is the azimuth/range display of the RPN. You can acquire targets by pressing the green buttons left of the display, than selecting a free of the 6 channels at the upper part of the panel.

The bigger (white) screen beside the 6 target channel selection buttons is the launch indicator ala Vega, just it has 6 lines instead of one.

it seems hpasp read all of c300 manual....
si why he doesnt create it on samsim
that is is the question

Thanks!

And what about range officer? Why three D-V like indicators? Does it have something to do with anti-ARM capability?
Which target does he acquire in range? The selected one by target acquisition officer?

What is the process of target acquisition? TAO selects target according to NVO indicator by rotating RPN using his wheel and then using green buttons left from his lower indicator (why four buttons? some methods for automated target search? RPN must find the target with its beam).
Which RPN beam is used for this target searching? The one which will track the target later after target assignment? In other words RPN beam (which tracks the target) is assigned to one of six channels?

Then I suppose range tracking officer measures target's distance and locks it in range. Then TAO assigns azimuth and range tracked target to on of the six channels. Am I correct?

And anti-ARM:
Does the S-300 incorporate a similar function to Krug's periodic particular beam transmission cease? How would the very narrow beam finds it target again? Or is the beam always on?
And anti-ARM engagement mode, how does it work? Is system able to detect ARM release from the target tracking beam? Is the process fully automated, or the ARM appears as a new target being tracked and operators must assing it and launch the missile?

And the last one, let's imagine RPN is tracking one target. You want to track another one. How RPN movement in this case works?
Because it is electronically scanned array, you have limits (like field of view) where the beam can move in azimuth plane. What is the azimuth field of view?
Is it possible to move RPN mechanically to gain some extra field of view? I mean the case with another target tracked.
For example the tracking beam directs to the middle of field of view. You want to track another target at the right edge of field of view, so is it possible to rotate RPN a bit to the right so the already tracked target will be located in the left part of field of view instead in the middle?
Are there these limits implemented so you would not lose the target in case you rotate the RPN too much (some RPN movement limiter)?

If you read correctly, you would know that he has never seen such a manual....

i said it... because he has great and clear information about c300

Unfortunately, I only know the generic working, but not the details...