Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/25/1205:20 PM
"The Rock of Hungary""A Szikla" was built before the WW2 by the Germans, to store the Hungarian National Bank gold stock, the Hungarian Crown, plus the Air Defense Command Post.
During the Cold War, it was upgraded to NBC level.
After Hungary joined NATO, this post take responsibility for Eastern Air military traffic Control.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/02/1204:50 PM
ALMAZ history Album 1947-77...
... including S-25/-75/-125/-200/-225/-300P SAM Systems... Kometa/K-20/-10/-22/H-15/Rubezh/Drakon ASM systems... IT-1 ATGM Systems... Omega-2 SALS (Surface to Air Laser System) Dreyf AALS (Air to Air Laser System)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/02/1205:43 PM
Originally Posted By: milang
what different between sa-11 and sa-17 ???? this two type very looks like together
The 2K12 KUB (SA-6) system had several incremental releases, the 9K37 BUK (SA-11) and the 9K317 BUK-M2 (SA-17) systems.
Main difference is the increased number of target channels... ... while the KUB can track 2 targets parallel and engage one with several missiles, the BUK can engage several targets in the same time.
Also missile range is increased, KUB ~25km, BUK ~35km, BUK-M2 ~50km.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/03/1208:57 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
... while the KUB can track 2 targets parallel and engage one with several missiles, the BUK can engage several targets in the same time.
O MY God.... until now! I thought sa-6 could tracking 2 target and attack to them at one moment so...if kub could attack only to one target !!! where is sa-6 good point????? just mobile and semi-homing guidance ???
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1207:51 AM
Development of the KUB SAM system was initiated by the decree of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union in 18 July 1958. The system had to be capable of destroying targets, flying at speeds of Mach2, at an altitude of 100m, in rages between 5-20km, with a hit probability of 70% per launched missile.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1208:09 AM
sa-3 Production history Designer Almaz Central Design Bureau Designed 1960s Manufacturer JSC Defense Systems (Pechora-M) Produced 1963-present Variants Neva, Pechora, Volna, Neva-M, Neva-M1, Volna-M, Volna-N, Volna-P, Pechora 2, Pechora 2M, Newa SC, Pechora-M
sa-6 Production history Designer NIIP/Vympel MMZ (GM chassis) Designed 1959 Manufacturer Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant (SURNs) ZiK (TELs) Produced 19681985 Number built 500 launchers, 10 000 missiles[1] Variants 2K12 Kub, 2K12E Kvadrat (export version), 2K12M3, 2K12M4
so sa-3 looks like younger than sa-6??? so why in almost country's join in nato sa-3 remove from servis but why sa-6 still online with nato standard ?
sa-3 in rages between 5-20km, with a hit probability of what percent per launched missile could hit target? 30% per launched missile????.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1208:15 AM
Originally Posted By: milang
Click to reveal..
sa-3 Production history Designer Almaz Central Design Bureau Designed 1960s Manufacturer JSC Defense Systems (Pechora-M) Produced 1963-present Variants Neva, Pechora, Volna, Neva-M, Neva-M1, Volna-M, Volna-N, Volna-P, Pechora 2, Pechora 2M, Newa SC, Pechora-M
sa-6 Production history Designer NIIP/Vympel MMZ (GM chassis) Designed 1959 Manufacturer Ulyanovsk Mechanical Plant (SURNs) ZiK (TELs) Produced 19681985 Number built 500 launchers, 10 000 missiles[1] Variants 2K12 Kub, 2K12E Kvadrat (export version), 2K12M3, 2K12M4
so sa-3 looks like younger than sa-6??? so why in almost country's join in nato sa-3 remove from servis but why sa-6 still online with nato standard ?
Probably because KUB is mobile.
Originally Posted By: milang
sa-3 in rages between 5-20km, with a hit probability of what percent per launched missile could hit target? 30% per launched missile.
Hit probability is only valid for non maneuvering/jamming, straight flying target.
Dvina with 3 missiles; 96% Volhov with 3 missiles; 99% Neva with 2 missiles; 98% Vega with 3 missiles; 98% KRUG with 1 missile; 97% KUB with 3 missiles; 98%
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1209:16 AM
..my bad I came to the conclusion... in my mind i created from KUB one bIG monster i had a high expectations for a 2K12 KUB (SA-6A) simulator of course KUB is a different Style and peculiar system in soviet union SAM collection...... this system is realy one of complexity sam in the world
but i dont know why ? why one system like sa-6 have a smile size but it armed with complexity take Pattern of sa-4 + sa-5 guidane and sa-3 indicator
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1210:03 AM
Originally Posted By: milang
..my bad I came to the conclusion... in my mind i created from KUB one bIG monster i had a high expectations for a 2K12 KUB (SA-6A) simulator of course KUB is a different Style and peculiar system in soviet union SAM collection...... this system is realy one of complexity sam in the world
but i dont know why ? why one system like sa-6 have a smile size but it armed with complexity take Pattern of sa-4 + sa-5 guidane and sa-3 indicator
Against low flying targets, in the '50s using CW Doppler radar seemed to be the easiest solution. Part of the system complexity is resulted that the NIIP bureau never designed any SAM system before... ... they were designers of AA missile systems.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1211:46 AM
KRUG seems an outlier in your table.
The others have an "equivalent SSKP" of 66% for Dvina to 86% for Neva, with the remainder in the mid-low 70s... while KRUG is 97%
While I am aware that it might not be valid to just combine two or three 'equivalent SSKP' to obtain an engagement P(K) this difference seems ~ striking. Is this what you'd expect?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1211:59 AM
Is a Krug 'engagement' really one missile though? ~ I had the impression (not confirmed by checking the manuals I must admit) that almost all fired 2-3 missiles per target.
With 2 rounds for the engagement, the equivalent SSKP is 83% & within the range of the other missiles.
Obviously in the 'real world' nothing like this accuracy should be expected from any of these systems, especially if you have dense jamming and ARM considerations that might force dropping track, plus manoeuvring fighter targets.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1212:41 PM
Originally Posted By: Lieste
Is a Krug 'engagement' really one missile though? ~ I had the impression (not confirmed by checking the manuals I must admit) that almost all fired 2-3 missiles per target.
With 2 rounds for the engagement, the equivalent SSKP is 83% & within the range of the other missiles.
Obviously in the 'real world' nothing like this accuracy should be expected from any of these systems, especially if you have dense jamming and ARM considerations that might force dropping track, plus manoeuvring fighter targets.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/04/1206:57 PM
try this video please....
BUK-M1
http://www.aparat.com/v/b5e17c753d2ee497cdb8683eb980a3cc162089 but just focus on 1:21 minutes of video... i seen one range indicator looks like sa-4 ganef range indicator !!!!!!!!!! BUK take pattern of sa-4 range indicator ? or this indicator is normally and used on mobile sam system's????
PS: i have one semi-pro question.....! sa-3 in hungary + some country joined in nato removed, because this system was static, not mobile. ... but why sa-4 ganef removed???? that was mobile too
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/05/1208:51 AM
Originally Posted By: milang
try this video please....
BUK-M1
http://www.aparat.com/v/b5e17c753d2ee497cdb8683eb980a3cc162089 but just focus on 1:21 minutes of video... i seen one range indicator looks like sa-4 ganef range indicator !!!!!!!!!! BUK take pattern of sa-4 range indicator ? or this indicator is normally and used on mobile sam system's????
Quite normal, same is used in the Shilka.
Originally Posted By: milang
PS: i have one semi-pro question.....! sa-3 in hungary + some country joined in nato removed, because this system was static, not mobile. ... but why sa-4 ganef removed???? that was mobile too
In Hungary, the KRUG brigade mission was to protect the nuclear armed Scud missile brigade. When the Cold War ended, and the Soviets removed the nuclear warheads of the Scud missiles, the Scud brigade was disbanded. (there is no point to keep Scud missiles without nuclear tipped warhead) When the Scud brigade was disbanded, there was also no point to keep the KRUG.
PS: Important to see, that while the KRUG main mission was to protect the SCUD brigade in Army-Front level, the KUB mission was to protect the tank regiments on division level.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/05/1212:46 PM
pretty video from sa-3 , s-125-2T
PS: hpasp.... i read sa-3 PDF again ... in this video i see pasive flight for once in my life time why in sa-3 pdf u do not wrote about after burn how many time v-601 can pasive fligt on air?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/05/1212:52 PM
another 2 video about sa-3 launch and killed ashuluk target
PS: hpasp could u explain pleas... why in these video sa-3 missile doing hard Maneuvering on air .... but we cant see like this Maneuvering's line on 3daar?
could u work on Maneuver line in 3daar like realistic missile Maneuver?
PS-2 : check 16 sceond's of first video with slow speed! when missile launch downer wing's assemble on booster Pull out like Switchblade knife!!! some one want explain about that pinnule's on s-125 boooster!!!? why that pinnule like Switchblade knife Pull out???
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/05/1204:31 PM
The AAR track *does* have wiggle in it, and if viewed from the rear the missile can be seen to oscillate, and deviate from the direct path to some extent... when viewed from the side or zenith however the track seen in the video would appear almost straight, as is the impression given by the default views of the AAR.
(why I've never been very convinced of drastic reduction in range with low to moderate manoeuvre requirements ~ the missile is usually flying with some AOA and 'g' load to follow/recross the desired mean path... if a turn is required the corrections become single sided and the missile turns ~ but there may be less, or a similar overload compared to the straight path).
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/12/1210:39 AM
Not exactly an air defence... But even more exciting: test launch of 53T6 (SH-08 Gazelle) anti-ballistic missile at Priozersk (better known as Sary-Shagan). During start, this missile experiences an acceleration of 200G and climbs to 30000 meters in just 5-6 seconds. Maximum speed exceeds 4000 m/sec. No detailed photos of the missile are ever published, since it is still top secret. It's a long video, but more than worth watching.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/12/1206:56 PM
Not a video and not a SAM system, but I think a good overall Radar documentation also fits in this information gathering topic: [url=---http://www.radartheory.8m.com/basics.html#basic]Radar Theory and Systems[/url]
Edit: Modified the direct link due to pistons79 virus warning - I did not get any such warnings, not at home and not at the office; remove the leading dashes in the link at your own risk
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/12/1207:05 PM
Originally Posted By: WhoCares
Not a video and not a SAM system, but I think a good overall Radar documentation also fits in this information gathering topic: Radar Theory and Systems
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/12/1208:36 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: WhoCares
Not a video and not a SAM system, but I think a good overall Radar documentation also fits in this information gathering topic: <removed>
There is trojan in this site!!!
When I browsed that page from different systems with different protection I did not get any notification. Just ran some online checks and out of three or four, http://sitecheck.sucuri.net/scanner/ detects some Java Script malware that is intended to load a "Fake AV" virus. So I remove the link from my post and you should also invalidate/remove it in your quote of my post... Sorry for any inconvenience - looks like I am not very lucky with my posts here...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/06/1204:55 PM
Gepard definitely. 35mm Oerlikon, heavy armour. The 35mm allow it to be able to knock out most delicate fighter aircraft with one hit. Su-25 2-3 hits, and helicopters 2-3 hits. A-10 might take 3-5 hits though, if that makes any difference
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/06/1205:29 PM
Originally Posted By: jazjar
Gepard definitely. 35mm Oerlikon, heavy armour. The 35mm allow it to be able to knock out most delicate fighter aircraft with one hit. Su-25 2-3 hits, and helicopters 2-3 hits. A-10 might take 3-5 hits though, if that makes any difference
so could you help me ??? wich mobile system is allowed to compare with shilka??? tunguska?
with translation = pilot and co-pilot: ok bombs out! co-pilot: drop the fuel tank! drop the fuel tank! pilot: ok... dropped! co-pilot: 500 feets, go low! 400 feets, roll! roll! pilot: [(...this is what i'm doing!) not in subtitles] co-pilot: there you are, 200 feets. stay here. 200 feets, ok you are inbound. go streight. Level! Level! Level! pilot: Roger. co-pilot: Level. Ok...go ahead... you are low. 200 feets, full throttle! I (already) dropped the fuel tank. Ok... full throttle. pilot: Use chaffs! Use chaffs! co-pilot: I'm chaffing! Go ahead! Go ahead! pilot: Use chaffs again! co-pilot: I'm chagging a lot! Go ahead! Go low, go low! 200 feets. pilot: Engines are still ok! co-pilot: 130 feets, 120 feets, go ahead!
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1203:35 PM
"While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History. (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)"
Russian SAMs ARE history.
Where was the "mighty" SA-10 when Israel bombed the Syrian reactors LOL?
How many fighters were lost to SAMs in OIF? 1 A-10 to a French/German Roland.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1205:25 PM
Originally Posted By: UnderTheRadar
"While Fighter Pilots made movies, SAM Officers made History. (U-2 over Sverdlovsk, B-52's over Hanoi, F-4 Phantoms over the Sinai, F-16's and the F-117A Stealth bomber over the Balkans.)"
Russian SAMs ARE history.
Where was the "mighty" SA-10 when Israel bombed the Syrian reactors LOL?
Nowhere!!! (FYI, S-300 was never exported into Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Serbia, etc...)
First generation consisted two systems...
The towed version S-300PT (SA-10A Grumble) was fielded in 1979, replacing the S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild) batteries around Moscow.
The mobile version S-300PS (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 East Germany, Bulgaria, China, and (Czech)Slovakia.
Second generation of the S-300P is fielded from 1989, as the S-300PM (SA-20A Gargoyle), and exported in two versions. The S-300PMU-1 (SA-20A Gargoyle) is shipped from 1994, into China, Greece, Algeria, 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).
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1207:35 PM
Originally Posted By: UnderTheRadar
Oh? Did Russia sell ANY SAMs to Syria? Because NONE of them seemed to work
SAMs dont shoot by themselves, its soldiers who operates them or officers who makes decisions / thinks strategicaly. Advanced training is essential for them, otherwise all the expensive gear is useless. But can be applied to any military organisation; airforce / navy / ground forces / etc.
Also decent enemy will allways make a cunning plan / find weak spot. This gives attacker an advantage - the element of surprise / unknown. I think SAMSIM lets us experience this clearly; historical scenarios.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1207:46 PM
Originally Posted By: montieris
Also decent enemy will allways make a cunning plan / find weak spot. This gives attacker an advantage - the element of surprise / unknown. I think SAMSIM lets us experience this clearly; historical scenarios.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1208:07 PM
I would say that cyber warfare is The New Sheriff in town. Suter/IADS/etc. are just a tool. Tool in evolutionary war where new technology is developed all the time.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1208:23 PM
Originally Posted By: UnderTheRadar
Originally Posted By: montieris
Also decent enemy will allways make a cunning plan / find weak spot. This gives attacker an advantage - the element of surprise / unknown. I think SAMSIM lets us experience this clearly; historical scenarios.
Samsim does not simulate Suter, does it?
It's a whole new ballgame out there.
There is a new sheriff in town. His name is Suter
Oh yeah, really?! And what on earth is Suter? Is that your real name?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1208:37 PM
Originally Posted By: UnderTheRadar
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
FYI, S-300 was never exported into Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Serbia, etc...
Oh? Did Russia sell ANY SAMs to Syria? Because NONE of them seemed to work
If you will have a look in Google Earth at the area where that supposed Syrian reactor was located, you will find no single sign of any SAM system in the entire area. No active site (you may use the historical imagery feature), no abandoned site - nothing. The nearest SAM is located 40 km away near town of Deyr Az Zawr, and its effective range is 25 km. So what are you talking about?
For me, it appears that either Syrians relied on secrecy rather than any defences, knowing that they will attract unnecessary attention placing SAM batteries there, or, more plausible, the object in question had no relation to any nuclear program at all. If they would really want to protect it with air defences, they would built it in the areas of the country already filled with SAM sites, and not somewhere in the outback, close to Turkish/Iraqi borders.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1209:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Lonewolf357
For me, it appears that either Syrians relied on secrecy rather than any defences, knowing that they will attract unnecessary attention placing SAM batteries there, or, more plausible, the object in question had no relation to any nuclear program at all. If they would really want to protect it with air defences, they would built it in the areas of the country already filled with SAM sites, and not somewhere in the outback, close to Turkish/Iraqi borders.
So what you are saying is that Syria purposely moved all their defenses away from any path the Israelis could use to get to their enrichment site?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/18/1209:14 PM
Originally Posted By: UnderTheRadar
So what you are saying is that Syria purposely moved all their defenses away from any path the Israelis could use to get to their enrichment site?
Seems legit... LOL
What I'm saying is that this area never saw any air defences. Since the beginning of the time, invention of agriculture, establishment of Syria, etc...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/22/1209:53 PM
guyzzz do you have any video link about sa-3B launcher? this launcher could turn around itself on 360 degrees or this launcher limited and can't turn 360 degrees like sa-2 launcher?????
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/23/1201:11 PM
Originally Posted By: milang
guyzzz do you have any video link about sa-3B launcher? this launcher could turn around itself on 360 degrees or this launcher limited and can't turn 360 degrees like sa-2 launcher?????
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/06/1207:32 PM
I recently got this (German) book on the S-300:
Quite an intersting read. It's really not a technical manual, even though it explains the basics of the system and differences to the Volhov complex. But the meat is in the telling the story of preparing for the introduction of the first S-300 to the East German SAM forces. The anecdotes give a bit of insight in what life and training in an active cold war SAM unit was like during peace time, all over the backdrop of Perestroika and Glasnost.
Of course this all happening between 1988 and 1990 means that while the East German air defense forces had - forgive me the crude imagery - a massive hard-on for the highly advanced S-300 they were blueballed by having to ship the system back to Russia when the Warsaw pact fell apart.
I had a little taste of what controlling one would be like. In Il-2 1946 i had set up a massive B-17 raid to bomb a city; then put a lone Ta-183 armed with X-4's on the ground; in line with the bombers. I managed to kill one; altough it's really a royal pain to get a man to do a computer's job; flying a missile into an airplane :P
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/23/1212:10 AM
^ Yeah i saw that! I assume it's what they need before an Invasion. Scary #%&*$#. I support massively dousing the middle-east with weaponized synthetic THC; ain't no time to fight when you are playing ball with pink elephants.
Aaah and Rhine-daughter! That's a very weird one. I think it is a Rheinbote SSM development.
And then again there's another one, the Enzian wich is basically a pilotless ME-163
Three competing projects wasting their efforts; this was a trademark of the nazi war machine. Had they concentrated on any one of them; their effects on the bomber campaign could have been horrifying for us. Night as well as day missions would be in danger from these radar-guided missiles; even if they are primitive as hell.
But the last one is the insanest; the Natter (Viper); wich is basically a PILOTED rocket-spitting semi-reusable SAM (i refuse to call this contraption an interceptor). It's first flight killed the pilot; wich reinforced the belief that "auto-pilot" is the only way to control such a dangerously fast machine
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/03/1203:29 PM
A different question: What is the actual tactical use of combining gun and missile systems, like with the "Pantsir" or "Tunguska" systems?
I understand that a guided missile system is distinctly more expensive than a radar-guided gun system but the only solution for medium range targets. Now I would assume that even if the guns are superior at extremely short ranges and low heights, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have some additional short-range missiles instead of having to construct everything around a gun platform?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/04/1208:59 AM
Originally Posted By: Architrav
A different question: What is the actual tactical use of combining gun and missile systems, like with the "Pantsir" or "Tunguska" systems?
I understand that a guided missile system is distinctly more expensive than a radar-guided gun system but the only solution for medium range targets. Now I would assume that even if the guns are superior at extremely short ranges and low heights, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have some additional short-range missiles instead of having to construct everything around a gun platform?
the guns are superior at extremely short ranges and low heights
Exactly.
Creating a cheap short range SAM, that cannot be blinked by Flare, and its radio/optical fuse is not susceptible against ground clutter is quite a challenge... ... on the other-side, spraying bullets is cheap and effective.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/04/1209:29 AM
Plus the guns are useful as a secondary 'self protection' mode against light armour or recon vehicles... (ultimately they can also be used deliberately in eg urban environments but this is *probably* a waste of limited availability assets).
A SAM (9K31, 9K35) would only have self-protection from crew small arms and (possibly) one RPG22 per vehicle. Tunguska or Shilka is a credible threat to an M2 or BMP, or M113 or BTR/BRDM class vehicle and obviously also 'jeep' or HMMWV... although fire and retreat would seem preferable to hanging around to find out what else is there....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/04/1210:39 AM
Originally Posted By: Lieste
Tunguska or Shilka is a credible threat to an .. BMP, ..
One who served on Strela-1 told me about accident in his battery where Shilka commander failed to set gun trigger to safe and by leaving thru hatch somehow triggered burst into BTR standing in column, front of Shilka. None was alive after, body parts everywhere, BTR was shredded to pieces.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/04/1210:54 AM
Originally Posted By: montieris
Originally Posted By: Lieste
Tunguska or Shilka is a credible threat to an .. BMP, ..
One who served on Strela-1 told me about accident in his battery where Shilka commander failed to set gun trigger to safe and by leaving thru hatch somehow triggered burst into BTR standing in column, front of Shilka. None was alive after, body parts everywhere, BTR was shredded to pieces.
Hatch has a safety switch, if it is open, firing is blocked.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/15/1206:37 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
... for all those modern Patriot/S-300 systems, and again the S-75/125 emerge out as a clear winner.
Long live vacuum tubes..! But as I knew, even modern systems could be protected by so called "Faraday cage"..
P.S. It wouldn't be so easy:
Click to reveal..
1BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTBAA-08-RD-04Air Force Research Laboratory/Directed Energy Directorate ANNOUNCEMENT OVERVIEW BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT TITLE: Counter-Electronics High PowerMicrowave Advanced Missile Project Joint Capability Technology Demonstration(CHAMP JCTD)BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: BAA-08-RD-04CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) NUMBER(S): 12.800 AIRFORCE DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES PROGRAM and 12.910 RESEARCH ANDTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTBRIEF PROGRAM SUMMARY:The High Power Microwave Technologies Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory(AFRL), Directed Energy Directorate (RD), Kirtland AFB New Mexico, is seekinginnovative techniques and approaches for the development of non-lethal weaponstechnology that targets high valued electronic systems.Combatant Commanders (COCOMS) have expressed desires for additional militaryoptions against the variety of electronic systems that are used in military, industrial, civil,and asymmetrical applications. To provide viable military options to the COCOMS, theAir Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorates High Power MicrowaveDivision (AFRL/RDH) is seeking to develop and demonstrate the capability andoperational utility of a high power microwave (HPM) aerial demonstrator.The objective of this effort is to develop, test, and demonstrate a multi-shot and multi-target aerial HPM demonstrator that is capable of degrading, damaging, or destroyingelectronic systems. For this effort, the contractor shall develop a compact HPM payloadfor integration into an aerial platform. The contractor shall produce five aerialdemonstrators. One aerial platform without the HPM source shall be developed for aflight test to demonstrate delivery, controllability, and fuzing. The remaining four aerialplatforms with the integrated HPM source shall be developed for flight testing,demonstration, and HPM effects tests. Of the four HPM prototypes, one shall be used forground tests, two shall be used for flight tests, and the remaining one shall be used as aback-up for the flight test.This is a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) describing the research area of interestfor the CHAMP JCTD program. A single award contract is anticipated with a 36-monthtechnical effort/period of performance.PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: Proposals are due 15 Jan 2009 12:00 noon,Mountain Standard Time (MST). Proposals received after this due date and time shall begoverned by the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c) (3). 2ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST: Anticipated contract funding: FY09: $9M; FY10:$17M; FY11: $10M; FY12: $4M; Total $40M. This funding profile is an estimate onlyand will not be a contractual obligation for funding. All funding is subject to change dueto Government discretion and availability. All potential offerors should be aware that dueto unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little orno notice.GENERAL INFORMATION: The applicable NAICS code for this announcement is541712 with a size standard of 500 employees. This acquisition is unrestricted. ThisBAA is issued under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation paragraph6.102(d)(2) that provides for the competitive selection of research proposals. Theproposals submitted in response to this BAA that is selected for award is considered tobe the result of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of PL98-369, the Competition In Contracting Act of 1984. There will be no otherannouncement issued for this requirement. Offerors MUST monitorFedBizOpps/EPShttp://www.fbo.gov in the event this announcement is amended.TYPE OF CONTRACTS/INSTRUMENTS: The Air Force reserves the right to award theinstrument best suited to the nature of research proposed. It is anticipated that awardunder this BAA will be cost plus fixed fee (CPFF), completion form contract, whichrequires successful offeror to have an accounting system considered adequate fortracking costs applicable to the contract.ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF AWARDS: The Air Force anticipates awarding a minimumof one contract. However, the Air Force does reserve the right to make multiple awardsor no awards pursuant to this BAA.Technical Point of Contact: The technical point of contact for this BAA is Mr. RobertTorres, AFRL/RDHA, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone 505-846-8054, EmailRobert.Torres@kirtland.af.mil. Contracting Points of Contact: The contracting points of contact for this BAA are:Contract Specialist: Ms. Rita Varley, AFRL/RDKP, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone 505-846-4398, Email Rita.Varley@kirtland.af.mil;or Contracting Officer: Ms. Kay Davis, AFRL/RDKL, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone 505-284-2240, Email Kay.Davis@kirtland.af.mil 3BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENTBAA-08-RD-04Air Force Research Laboratory/Directed Energy Directorate FULL TEXT ANNOUNCEMENT1. REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTIONA. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Directed Energy Directorate (RD) isinterested in receiving proposals from all offerors to advance the state-of-the-art andscientific knowledge in directed energy technology. Proposals must address thespecific requirements of the attached Statement of Objectives, providing viable militaryoptions to the Combatant Commanders (COCOMS), the Air Force Research Laboratory,Directed Energy Directorates High Power Microwave Division (AFRL/RDH) indeveloping and demonstrating the capability and operational utility of a high powermicrowave (HPM) aerial demonstrator.B. This is a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) describing the research area ofinterest for the CHAMP JCTD program. A single award of a contract is anticipated witha 36-month technical effort/period of performance.C. The objective of this effort is to develop, integrate, test, and demonstrate a multi-shotand multi-target aerial HPM demonstrator that is capable of degrading, damaging, ordestroying electronic systems. For this effort, the contractor shall develop a compactHPM payload for integration into an aerial platform. The contractor shall produce fiveaerial demonstrators. One aerial platform without the HPM source shall be developed fora flight test to demonstrate delivery, controllability, and fuzing. The remaining four aerialplatforms with the integrated HPM source shall be developed for flight testing,demonstration, and HPM effects tests. Of the four HPM prototypes, one shall be used forground tests, two shall be used for flight tests, and the remaining one shall be used as aback-up for the flight test.Offeror(s) will require access to classified data to adequately respond to theGovernments requirements. Offeror(s) shall contact Capt Michael Leaver, AFRL/RDHA,(505) 853-7553 to verify credentials for transmission over the SIPRnet or to schedule avisit to view classified documents. Only individuals with verifiable credentials at theSECRET level will be granted access.D. CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRLs). The following datadeliverables are representative of the types of data that will be required. The full textCDRLs are included at Exhibit A to the model contract.A001 Presentation MaterialsA002 Status ReportA003 Scientific & Technical ReportA004 Developmental Design Drawings and Associated ListsA005 Test PlanA006 Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR)A007 Computer Software Program End ItemA008 Software Users Manual A009 Technical Report-Study Services 4A010 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)A011 Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)A012 Contract Performance Report2. ANTICIPATED FUNDINGAnticipated contract funding: FY09: $9M; FY10: $17M; FY11: $10M; FY12: $4M;Total $40M This funding profile is an estimate only and will not be a contractualobligation for funding. All funding is subject to change due to Government discretion andavailability. All potential offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budgetfluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice.3. POINTS OF CONTACTA. TECHNICAL POINTS OF CONTACT (TPOC).1) The technical point of contact for this BAA is Mr. Robert Torres, AFRL/RDHA,Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone 505-846-8054, Email Robert.Torres@kirtland.af.mil. B. CONTRACTING POINTS OF CONTACT:1) The contracting points of contact for this BAA are:a) Contract Specialist: Ms. Rita Varley, AFRL/RDKP, Kirtland AFB, NM,Phone 505-846-4398, Email Rita.Varley@kirtland.af.mil b) Contracting Officer: Ms. Kay Davis, AFRL/RDKL, Kirtland AFB, NM,Phone 505-246-2240, Email Kay.Davis@kirtland.af.milC. OMBUDSMAN:AFFARS CLAUSE5352.201-9101 Ombudsman(AUG 2005) is hereby incorporatedinto this BAA and will be made a part of any awards based on this solicitation. Theombudsman for AFRL is Ms. Sue Hunter, AFRL/PK, 1864 4th Street, Bldg 15, Room225, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433-7130, Phone 937.255.0432, Fax 937.255.5036,E-mail Sue.Hunter@wpafb.af.mil.4. COMMUNICATIONSA. Prospective offerors are reminded to contact the technical point of contact to verifyinterest in the effort to be proposed and the funding availability PRIOR to committing anyresources to the preparation of any proposals in response to this announcement.Foreign owned firms are advised they may be precluded from proposing. These firms are advised to contact the Contracting Point of Contact or TPOC before submitting a proposal to determine whether there are restrictions on receiving an award. B. Dialogue between prospective offerors and Government representatives isencouraged until submission of proposals. Discussions with any of the points of contactshall not constitute a commitment by the Government to subsequently fund or award any 5proposed effort. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit theGovernment.C. Proposals are due 15 Jan 2009, 12:00 noon, Mountain Standard Time (MST).Proposals received after the due date and time specified shall be governed by theprovisions of FAR 52.215-1(c) (3).D. Proposals for FAR type contracts should be submitted to: Contracting Specialist:AFRL/RDKP, Attn. Rita Varley, 2251 Maxwell Ave SE, Bldg 424, Kirtland AFB, NM,87117. Proposals sent to any inappropriate address are ineligible for award. Proposalsfor FAR contracts sent via facsimile or electronic means will not be accepted.E. There will be no other announcement issued for this requirement. Offerors MUSTmonitorFedBizOpps/EPS http://www.fbo.gov in the event this announcement isamended. Offerors must monitor this system to ensure they receive the maximumproposal preparation time for subsequent amendments as this is the official notificationvehicle to request proposals.F. Potential offerors are requested to advise the Contracting Officer if they intend tosubmit a proposal in response to this BAA. Such notification is merely a courtesy and isnot a commitment by the offeror to submit a proposal.5. GENERAL INFORMATIONPotential offerors are advised of the following:A. The applicable NAICS code for this announcement is 541712 with a size standard of500 employees.B. This acquisition is unrestricted. This BAA is issued under the provisions of FederalAcquisition Regulation paragraph 6.102(d)(2) that provides for the competitive selectionof research proposals. The proposals submitted in response to this BAA that is selectedfor award is considered to be the result of full and open competition and in fullcompliance with the provisions of PL 98-369, the Competition In Contracting Act of 1984.C. AFMCFARS 5352.209-9002 Organizational Conflict of Interest, Alternates III and VImay apply. This issue and the need for this clause and applicable alternates will beresolved prior to the award of any instrument resulting from an offerors proposal. D. Information critical to developing complete and responsive offers to Phillips ResearchSite (PRS) Contracting and Assistance opportunities can be found on the PRSContracting and Assistance Information Fact Sheet, which may be accessed atwww.kirtland.af.mil/prs/. Information on this fact sheet includes Cost-ProposalInstructions, PRS Representations and Certifications, Proposal Content Checklist andCertifications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements.E. Department of Defense (DOD) Federally Funded Research and DevelopmentCenters (FFRDCs) (C31 Lab, Lincoln Laboratory, or Software Engineering Institute) maysubmit proposals in response to this announcement. Other FFRDCs or contractors thatpropose using FFRDCs not discussed herein shall provide rationale in its proposal that 6the research is within the purpose, mission, general scope of effort or specialcompetency of the FFRDC and that research to be performed would not place theFFRDC in direct competition with the private sector. The Government does not intendthat FFRDCs use privileged information or access to facilities to compete with the privatesector. If a contractor proposes using a FFRDC as a subcontractor, other than DOD-sponsored FFRDCs in the capacities discussed in DFARS 235.017, it must providerationale in its proposal that supports the unique capability of the FFRDC. Also, thecontractors proposal must demonstrate that the FFRDC can accept work from other than the sponsor.F. It is anticipated a DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification with aclassification level of Secret will be required during the performance of this contract.G. Research areas may involve technology that is subject to U.S. Export Control Laws.The Government anticipates that the award will be unclassified with limited access.Therefore, only offerors who are certified by the Defense Logistics Information Service(DLIS) may submit proposals. For questions, contact DLIS on-line [url=athttp://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp]athttp://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp[/url] or at DLIS, US/Canada Joint Certification Center, FederalCenter, 74 North Washington, Battle Creek MI 49017-4312, (800) 352-3572.6. AWARD INFORMATIONA. TYPE OF CONTRACT/INSTRUMENT: The Air Force reserves the right to award theinstrument best suited to the nature of research proposed.The Government anticipates that the award under this BAA will generally be cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), completion form contract, which requires the successful offeror to havean accounting system considered adequate for tracking costs applicable to the contract.A model contract, based on this anticipation, is included as an attachment to thisannouncement. Offerors proposing this type of contract should carefully review themodel contract attached and indicate in their proposal whether or not they takeexception to any of the model contract terms and conditions.B. ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF AWARDS: The Air Force anticipates awarding aminimum of one contract pursuant to this BAA. However, the Air Force does reserve theright to make multiple awards or no awards pursuant to this BAA.C. Proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made without discussions,unless discussions are determined to be necessary. However, the Government mayobtain clarifications to determine proposal acceptability. Discussions may be held withprospective awardees prior to award if needed. In the event the Government is unableto conclude negotiations with the apparent successful offeror(s), it reserves the right toconduct negotiations with another acceptable offeror.7. PROPOSAL PREPARATIONA. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:1. This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit theGovernment to pay for proposal preparation cost. The cost of preparing proposals inresponse to this BAA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Champ Solicitation v8 4 Dec 2008 Published
... for all those modern Patriot/S-300 systems, and again the S-75/125 emerge out as a clear winner.
I bet S-300 will have much better chance of shooting down this nasty thing before it will even get close enough... Besides, in this interview (in Russian)...
It is amazing that none of these systems were used to cover the big cities. Not a single system around London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh... Such a stark contrast with the Soviet practice.
It is amazing that none of these systems were used to cover the big cities. Not a single system around London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh... Such a stark contrast with the Soviet practice.
Maybe it's because NATO was looking at defence from a combined NATO viewpoint?
So Aircraft trying to go directly to the south of the UK would have to pass over Germany, Belgion, Netherlands and maybe France. Placing Bloodhounds there would protect against flights across the southern north-sea. With the northern north-sea protected by inteceptors?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/03/1307:07 PM
Time and place: September-October 2008 ground Chiu Chuan Chinese PLA
Control tests on the air defense system "Favorite" with target aquisitioning from 83M6E2 and air defense missile systems S-300PMU2 Chinese test site Jiu Quan were conducted to test the performance of the system shipped to China, and include flight and firing tests.
Flight tests were conducted to test the interoperability of systems, test individual modes of radio equipment in overflights on a wide class of targets: ballistic, aircraft, strategic and tactical aircraft and strategic cruise missiles. Overflights were conducted with the participation of specialists from the Russian side and confirmed the statement in the contract specifications of defense "Favorite".
Firing tests were conducted to test the effectiveness against the main types of targets defined on the system. The trials involved SU 83M6E2 and four S-300PMU2. Before testing the crews PLA China with the participation of specialists of the Russian Federation, check the readiness of equipment for fire testing and training of crews of the PLA of China. Firing experiments were conducted on five types of targets.
Experiment 1
Shooting at the operational and tactical ballistic target. Shooting made ​​AAMS number 2. The target was autotracked by 300PMU2 after target designation from SC 83M6E2.
At the entrance to the killing area, against ​​the target was fired two missiles 48N6E2. The coordinates of the meeting with the target missiles were:
The target was hit. The distance of the fall of the target's wreckage from the aiming point was 13 km. The wreckage of the target (similar to the operational and tactical ballistic missile):
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/03/1307:20 PM
Experiment number 2:
Shooting on the aircraft of strategic aviation. Purpose: Testing the liability of the system against targets on the far border of the engagement/fring zone. Shooting made AAMS number 4.
The target was autotracked from S-300PMU2 after target designation and aquisition from SC 83M6E2. Target fired one rocket 48N6E2. The target was hit at a range of 184.6 km. Shooting took place in conditions of jamming. The jamming level was set on the specificated level for the system.(???)
Target's wreckage:
-------
Experiment 3
Shooting at low-flying targets. Purpose: Testing the destruction of low-flying targets in strong reflections from the underlying surface . Shooting made AAMS number 1.
Small target type UAV was autotracked from the S-300PMU2 after target aquisition and designation of all-altitude 96L6E detector at a distance of 14.6 km. Fired two missiles 48N6E2 at a target and target was destroyed at distance 4.6 km.
Shooting took place in conditions of jamming. The jamming level was set on the specificated level for the system. The wreckage of the target: (low-flying target):
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/03/1307:30 PM
Experiment 4
Shooting against small ballistic target. Purpose: To check destroing of small tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). Shooting made AAMS number 3. The target type TBM was autotracked from S-Z00PMU2 in autonomouse mode. Target fired two missiles 48N6E2. The target was destroyed.
----
Experiment 5
Shooting at receiding target. Purpose: To check on the destruction of the receiding target. Shooting made AAMS number 1.
The target type of tactical aircraft autotracked by S-300PMU2 with target aquisition and designation from SC 83M6E2 -receiding speed- 248 m / s. One 48N6E missile fired. Target destroyed at a distance of 67.5 km and a height of 8 km.
Shooting took place in conditions of jamming. The jamming level was set on the specificated level for the system.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/03/1307:38 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Experiment number 2:
Shooting on the aircraft of strategic aviation. Purpose: Testing the liability of the system against targets on the far border of the engagement/fring zone. Shooting made AAMS number 4.
The target was autotracked from S-300PMU2 after target designation and aquisition from SC 83M6E2. Target fired one rocket 48N6E2. The target was hit at a range of 184.6 km. Shooting took place in conditions of jamming. The jamming level was set on the specificated level for the system.(???)
Click to reveal..
Target's wreckage:
Click to reveal..
-------
Experiment 3
Shooting at low-flying targets. Purpose: Testing the destruction of low-flying targets in strong reflections from the underlying surface . Shooting made AAMS number 1.
Small target type UAV was autotracked from the S-300PMU2 after target aquisition and designation of all-altitude 96L6E detector at a distance of 14.6 km. Fired two missiles 48N6E2 at a target and target was destroyed at distance 4.6 km.
Shooting took place in conditions of jamming. The jamming level was set on the specificated level for the system. The wreckage of the target: (low-flying target):
Click to reveal..
This picture nicely illustrates the lofted ballistic flightpath of the 48N6E2 missile... ... even more interesting, if you compare it to the flightpath of a V-880E missile from the S-200VE (SA-5B).
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/03/1307:53 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
This picture nicely illustrates the lofted ballistic flightpath of the 48N6E2 missile... ... even more interesting, if you compare it to the flightpath of a V-880E missile from the S-200VE (SA-5B).
Yep, 48N6E2 goes really "balistic", not like "Malenkii Soyuz"... :
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/04/1301:25 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
This picture nicely illustrates the lofted ballistic flightpath of the 48N6E2 missile... ... even more interesting, if you compare it to the flightpath of a V-880E missile from the S-200VE (SA-5B).
Yep, 48N6E2 goes really "balistic", not like "Malenkii Soyuz"... :
Click to reveal..
Hehe, only the tip of that Soyuz is not going to be ballistic, Ist, and IInd stage does.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/16/1303:25 PM
Originally Posted By: farokh
i seeing one panel in left side (like sa-4 range finder) so its one moveable system, 100 per 100
You are 100% correct. The 9K33 Osa (SA-8) was designed by the NII-20 bureau under the leadership of V.P. Efremov, right after the 2K11 KRUG (SA-4) system.
Im quite proud, that you could identify a Soviet SAM design bureau just looking at the operation panel!
(left - Range Officer, middle - Angle Officer, right - Commander/shooter)
Greek Osa (from the ex East German Army inventory) is tracking Turkish F-4E Phantom...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/19/1311:29 AM
Originally Posted By: wasserfall
With SAMsim; who knows! Maybe they got a few guys training on laptops with Hpasp's game :P
It's not funny... At least SAMSIM didn't show the much more complicated SAM TUNING procedure which should be done on every startup of the SAM complex, nor the service prosedures, which should be done on weekly and monthly basis... (HOW ABOUT OPENING ALL BOXES AND CLEANING IT OUT WITH SPIRIT + CHECKIN' ELECTRONIC TUBES PARAMETERS???)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/19/1311:57 AM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: wasserfall
With SAMsim; who knows! Maybe they got a few guys training on laptops with Hpasp's game :P
It's not funny... At least SAMSIM didn't show the much more complicated SAM TUNING procedure which should be done on every startup of the SAM complex, nor the service prosedures, which should be done on weekly and monthly basis... (HOW ABOUT OPENING ALL BOXES AND CLEANING IT OUT WITH SPIRIT + CHECKIN' ELECTRONIC TUBES PARAMETERS???)
With this comment, you exposed yourself as a former SAM operator.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/19/1312:17 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
With this comment, you exposed yourself as a former SAM operator.
After my secret was revealed I should say that I learned much more for the SAM's thrue this SIM and comunity, than till my military training...
And about cleaning with spirit (which is due to dust electric conductivity, which could reflects on el. tubes) - the instruction say that "thin layer must be applied"... The instructor ask us - the conscripts - to show him how we apply a thin layer of spirit on and we just put some spiritus on a piece of clean, dry cotton and start cleaning, but when the instructor saw this, he starting to shout "No!No!No! Let me show you how!", and he took up the bottle of spiritus, take a huge swallow and then exhale his breathe on the opened rack and said" That's how must aplly a thin layer!..." and ask for a cucumber..
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/19/1301:24 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
With this comment, you exposed yourself as a former SAM operator.
After my secret was revealed I should say that I learned much more for the SAM's thrue this SIM and comunity, than till my military training...
And about cleaning with spirit (which is due to dust electric conductivity, which could reflects on el. tubes) - the instruction say that "thin layer must be applied"... The instructor ask us - the conscripts - to show him how we apply a thin layer of spirit on and we just put some spiritus on a piece of clean, dry cotton and start cleaning, but when the instructor saw this, he starting to shout "No!No!No! Let me show you how!", and he took up the bottle of spiritus, take a huge swallow and then exhale his breathe on the opened rack and said" That's how must aplly a thin layer!..." and ask for a cucumber..
This is the exact description of the Russian cleaning method...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/23/1307:53 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Mdore
Bristol Bloodhound.
Kind of 1960s futuristic looking.
Cool!... Hpasp, it's worth it!...
Here in the Moscow Air Defense Museum, we have several well known, and even futuristic looking SAM systems. (If anybody could take good photos from a stative there...)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/09/1304:55 PM
How well could you simulate S-300? Would it be 'realistic to the switch', as switches are concerned, and just radar and missile performance guessed? Or you would have to guess every thing? Are manuals available?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/09/1307:40 PM
Originally Posted By: Vympel
How well could you simulate S-300? Would it be 'realistic to the switch', as switches are concerned, and just radar and missile performance guessed? Or you would have to guess every thing? Are manuals available?
How well, the SAMSIM simulates the S-75M3 Volhov system? Probably, this is the best free simulation available, but I'm aware of those points, where the system operation is simplified. (RS/AS/AS-AP,RL-TV, etc)
If I would ever create an S-300PMU simulation, than it would be the best free SAMSIM available, but less authentic than the Volhov.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/09/1307:46 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
but less authentic than the Volhov.
excuse me i dont understand ... why s-300 pmu simulation can be less authentic than the Volhov.? what about mim-104 patriot simulation ? it will be less authentic than the Volhov. too?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/09/1308:32 PM
Originally Posted By: farokh
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
but less authentic than the Volhov.
excuse me i dont understand ... why s-300 pmu simulation can be less authentic than the Volhov.? what about mim-104 patriot simulation ? it will be less authentic than the Volhov. too?
I can rate the simulation authenticity about the amount of information I'm aware of the system...
S-75M3 Volhov (SA-2E) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 4 points.
S-125M Neva (SA-3B) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 4 points.
KRUG (SA-4B) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 4 points.
S-200VE Vega-E (SA-5B) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 4 points.
SA-75M Dvina (SA-2F) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: NO
Altogether 2 points.
ZSU-23-4V1 Shilka Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Nike Hercules Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: YES, but requires a 1000km drive... System operators available to answer questions during development: Hopefully Original operation documentation is available: Partially Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 3 points.
S-25M Berkut (SA-1) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: It is available at the PVO museum in Moscow, but nobody taken the required shots so far. System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: YES Videos available showing the system operation: NO
Altogether 1,5 points.
S-60 Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: It is available in Hungary, but was not able to got inside at any of it. System operators available to answer questions during development: YES Original operation documentation is available: NO Videos available showing the system operation: NO
Altogether 1,5 points.
S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: It is available at the PVO museum in Moscow, but nobody taken the required shots so far. System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: NO Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 1,5 points.
S-300PMU (SA-10B) Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: NO, but can be generated digitally. System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: NO Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 1 points.
Patriot Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: NO, but can be generated digitally. System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: NO Videos available showing the system operation: YES
Altogether 1 points.
OSA Real system is available to photo the required screen-shots: NO System operators available to answer questions during development: NO Original operation documentation is available: Partially Videos available showing the system operation: NO
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/02/1311:50 AM
Quote:
FIRST MISSILE KILLED BY A MISSILE--Traveling at thousands of miles an hour, a NIKE HERCULES guided missile (left) tracked and shot down a CORPORAL ballistic missile (right) high over the WSMR. 3 June 1960. Picture sequence in center shows destruction of the target. This test marked the first time for a missile to be killed by a missile, and it was the first involving the NIKE HERCULES. Earlier in the year, a HAWK guided missile had shot down an HONEST JOHN, a short-range unguided rocket. (WSMR Photo, 3 June 1960)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/03/1305:33 AM
Cool video, though sometimes I wonder how effective western SAMs really are. Say what you want about Russian SAMs, at least they've had lots of real combat experience to work out the bugs. The few times western SAMs have been used, they haven't worked too great. Patriots missing Scuds in Iraq, or British SAMs failing to protect UK warships in the Falklands.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/03/1309:08 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Just a model...
YES... dear hpasp say right ....! they are models... but as i remember , some body said RAAD is a model too... but they launch it and it work so good!....
they are full reach of oil money, they are crazy and they do what they want to do ! RAAD is a upgraded version of BUK
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/10/1301:15 PM
Originally Posted By: Mdore
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Why would anyone do that?!
Taking an SA-8 and making it not mobile, makes no sense.
Maybe they ran out of SA-3 missiles, so put SA-8 missiles on an SA-3 launch site?
This "invention" is from Ashuluk firing range, AFAIK. It is used to fire the Saman target drones, which are modified 9M33 Osa missiles. The Neva's launcher is used because it is normally used to fire the Pischal target drones, which are modified 5V27's.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/09/1306:42 PM
Realistic to the switch ~ only one switch, the rest is made up though.
Not convinced you'd want to be wandering about that close to an energised radar either... but that I concede *might* be me being over-cautious... I like being fertile and having a normal temperature brain...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 05/30/1309:53 AM
Syria's a terrible place to be at the moment. 80,000 dead so far, by the best estimates.
And Syria's air defences are a lot tougher than Libya's a few years ago. Libya is a large country with a small military. Everything is spread out, and easy to defeat. But Syria is a small nation with lots of air defences. A lot of old SA-2 and SA-3 systems, but some upgraded to make them resistant to jamming. They also have some modern systems like SA-17 and Pantsir-S1.
Maybe it's too strong for any nation to do anything.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/04/1303:17 PM
The Adm Vinogradov is indeed a Udaloy I, so shouldn't have/had Kashtan ~ the only images of her are from before late 1992, so there may have been changes under a test-program to fit with the paper description and date (one year later?) Never read anything about it though, so isn't likely ~ I'd have expected to find confirmation of her upgrade if it had taken place.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/04/1308:36 PM
All I have is "SAM", 199404151525 (unclear if Zulu or local) over Bosnia, Etendard IVP reconnaisance, hit at 1500m 325KIAS. Recovered to Clemenceau without flaps. That might be enough (should be) to reconcile with Bosnian records/SAM types...
Comments indicate MANPAD, but it could be a larger tactical SAM (~ looks 'more' extensive and less localised damage than A4 hits by SA7 types... Another page suggests SA-14 but I don't know if that was in the local service?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/05/1305:46 PM
Quote:
**; hit by SA-7 "Grail" missile 17/01/91 in the afterburner cans, "Purple Heart" award right engine problems only Pilot - Major Ken Cheyenne Bode WSO - John "Ping" Scanlan
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/18/1306:50 AM
These videos aren't really connected with air defence, but they're so awesome, I just had to post. It's a bunch of videos about mechanical computers used in gun aiming. Mostly it's for ship vs ship, but I guess the general idea would work for AA use too, maybe in the Shilka. Anyway, I loved them, and thought some people here might like them too.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/29/1305:42 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Russian S-350 SAM system...
... And its specifications:
Translation: "Purpose: The medium-range S-350E SAM system is designed for air defence of administrative, industrial and military installations against massed attacks by existing and future threats. The S-350E is capable to simultaneously engage various threats from all directions (360 degrees) at all altitudes - from extremely low to high. The S-350E can operate independently or as a part of air defence network, being controlled by superior command posts. The combat operation is fully automatic. Crew prepares the SAM and controls (observes) the engagements.
Composition: 50K6E command post; 50N6E multi-function radars (up to two) 50P6E launchers (up to 8), each with 12 9M96E2 missiles.
Specifications: Maximum number of simultaneously engaged targets: -aerodynamic: 16 -ballistic: 12 Maximum number of simultaneously guided missiles: 32 Engagement zone against aerodynamic targets: -min./max. range: 1,5/60 km -min./max. altitude: 10m/30 km Engagement zone against ballistic tragets: -min./max. range: 1,5/30 km -min./max.altitude: 2/25 km Time to deploy from the move: 5 minutes Combat crew: 3 men"
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/24/1306:09 PM
Ode to PRV...
Quote:
"Having started my service in the PVO on the complex 5N87 , I have often provided technical assistance to the divisions of the repairing their radars and PRV-s. Each year, part went to the ground, often in Sary- Shagan. Once at the site right on the day of shooting I was urgently sent to the position of the S -75 to help set up the altimeter PRV- 13 , with which the commander of intelligence battalion suffered for two days. It turned out that the crews, which have been here for training had "simplified" PRV- 13 and "refined" it so much that it swinging , rotating, and transmitting starts simultaneously. Dehydrator did not exist, and the liquid cooling system howling, driving the tubes some haze . If it were possible to draw a diagram of the control cabin of PRV , it would fit on A4 sheet . Rotary amplifier when the rotation was buzzing like a siren , because all of its automatic step connection replaced 3 sticks that need was successively inserted into the contactor . Where was the trailer B2 with dead potentialoscope no one knew and did not look for it, whilst there was a trigger pulse . Most importantly, the PRV was alive..... High power switching only at the minimum , in an attempt to increase the power thyratron TGI1 -700 / ... started to shoot and flashed like a neon lamp, AFC has worked in a continuous mode , switch to another channel was not possible because of the absence of the VG- 12 adjustment mechanism and also waveguide switch was tightly bound with wire in one position. Receiver after the adjustment to the normal frequency of the mirror started to work fine, but only in the amplitude mode , confidently showing local objects . With the swing had to tinker a little longer . Modified by someone automation cabinet CM -23 antenna forced to start swinging conjunction with a hydraulic pump , so do not have enough pressure and antenna sharply fell to a lower limit switch , had to first remove the amplitude and wait "Kach.30" mode until the water pump spin up , then to adjust the swing . "CAUTION " lamp in this PRV is triggered even when you open the cabine door , I thought it was a joke or pore PRV, begged him not to be touched anymore. Luckily, after couple of hours repairing and adjustments the altimeter managed to find at a decent range aircraft on the air root Almaty - Karaganda . We all sigh of relief but the battalion commander decided not to switch PRV off until the end of practice shooting, in case it didn't manage to start working again.... And still running in the morning 'till afternoon PRV frightened squirrels with it's swinging' antenna and howling hydraulics. An hour before the shooting on the CP raised the red flag and then we buzzed the whole SAM unit - rotating P-18, SNR moved, crew loaded rockets, launchers deployed in a combat sector. Combat crew took their seats in the cabins, green screens lit up with an officer pointing and operators of RS. In the "U" cabin of S- 75 were remote indicators of the P-18 and a wardrobe of PRV that provide info for guidance station . When they announced the readiness minute , for half an hour PRV already searched the area near the point of known azimuth from a range of 95 km were the target was about to take off... "Start RM" was the cry from the brigade CP , "Start RM detect the target" shouted the battalion commander , Time passed , and the target did not appear. 15 seconds stretched into minutes, "Where's the target?" - yelled from CP , "Where's the target?" shouted the commander of air defense missile systems , and there, exactly on the same azimuth and on the very same range 95 km at an altitude of 5 km , there was a mark and rapidly spread upwards on the screen. "There is a target, height 5 .. 7 .. 10 ... 15 .. 18 .... 20" , with every stroke PRV seen the enemy , which has ceased to gain altitude and a speed of 1 km per second was rushing to a meeting PRV . P-18 is also finally found the target , but led her not confident, sometimes not giving a mark on every turn of the antenna. A PRV is gripped the target in a stranglehold as a well-trained dog that sees the prey and forgets the humiliations from it's master. "High altitude , high speed Target - Height 20 , Range 85!" (do not care that does not work MTI) , ..."Height 20 , Range 80, " (to hell with it, with coherent channel) ... "Height 20 , range 75 " (running does not help you go away, and with just one magnetron we 'll get you) . Meanwhile, the SNR in the " wide beam " as a blind kitten , vainly trying to discover what has long been seen by PRV. She (PRV) came to the rescue and gave the commander of the air defense system command: " TSU2 on SNR ." At this point , thank God, not touched by anyone relay selsyns connected PRV and SNR , the azimuth and elevation drive simultaneously turned SNR in the right direction and then on the indicators pointing officer appeared a mark. " Target on RS " - a guidance officer gave the operators follow the target. " Target acquired , height 20 , range 70 " gleefully reported the commander of the air defense system! "Destroy Target at the entrance to the killing zone" - happily gave the command the CP(HQ) , "The target is on AS " " Missiles for preparation" , "Loaders to the shelter!." A PRV is at this time continued to accompany the " enemy" tracking its azimuth , despite the crippled EMU , he was ready at any moment to give new CU-2 and implement the task. "The first - start, the second - start" , the officer just starting time to press the button , because all of us except the guidance officer jumped out of the cab and ran to the parapet . Because of the embankment launcher appears a cloud of dust and smoke and fire, with a dull roar 5YA23 soars to meet the target, almost immediately after her second rushes , they already know exactly where to go and what to do , 90 kg of TNT in each of them is not a joke. As long as we are seeing with delight as landfill in the cloudless sky flying rockets, PRV continues its work and on it's display two lines appeared and move to meet the target , more than half a minute passes before they meet. "Hooray, detonation! " - we are screeming and embrace each other , "Target destroyed, Height 20 , range 40" reported from PRV. He fulfilled his mission. And we are well noted successful shooting".....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/03/1311:14 AM
Originally Posted By: Architrav
Found a nice East German recrutation video from the 80s showing off all of their anti-air weapons. There are not many shots of the instruments, but the video quality is good. And it's got funky music!
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/18/1305:26 AM
I don't suppose you have a copy of that file or know where else it could be downloaded? I accidentally lost my copy months ago, and it not longer will download from that website for me.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/18/1308:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Mdore
I don't suppose you have a copy of that file or know where else it could be downloaded? I accidentally lost my copy months ago, and it not longer will download from that website for me.
This is not the latest one, but hope it is worthy..
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/26/1308:22 AM
Remains on Kildin Island. But I do not know from which particular (probably) missile this part is. It looks like an exhaust nozzle with some kind of thrust vectoring.
Anyways, more photos here, also S-125 missile containers can be seen there.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/29/1309:25 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Correct.
I have looked at the pictures from the Kildin Island again and it was not obvious for me at the first moment, but it looks like there are remains of S-300PT version - remains of trailers (launcher, radar mast), even clam shell radar head, missile parts....
What about the thing with a jet engine, what could it be?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/06/1312:36 PM
Yes I understood the reason, the wings can be clearly seen.
But you can distinguish both version for sure, because of the simple fact you already know :-) PT is tazennyj, which has everything on the trailers (which can be seen on pictures I posted before, look at that link) and the trailer does not have the typical "house" which can be seen on your picture under the masking net. Contrary to it PS samochodnyj has this "house" located just behind the drivers cabin.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/06/1306:16 PM
Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Yes I understood the reason, the wings can be clearly seen.
But you can distinguish both version for sure, because of the simple fact you already know :-) PT is tazennyj, which has everything on the trailers (which can be seen on pictures I posted before, look at that link) and the trailer does not have the typical "house" which can be seen on your picture under the masking net. Contrary to it PS samochodnyj has this "house" located just behind the drivers cabin.
The S-300PS launcher can launch both the 5V55K, and the 5V55R missiles.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/10/1306:14 AM
Rapier entered service in 1971. It was designed to directly hit the target, so it had a tiny 1.4kg warhead and no proximity fuse. Its maximum range and altitude were only slightly better than shoulder launched SAMs. And it was optically guided, so could only be used during the day time and clear weather. Pretty terrible eh? But what can you expect from a light weight, highly mobile system?... except it wasn't highly mobile, it was a towed system that took a long time to set up.
By 1979, they realised it would be a good idea if the Rapier could be fired at targets even if it was dark, foggy or the aircraft were above clouds, so they added a Radar to a 1/3rd of them.
It was used to defend the British army during the Falklands war, but it was a fragile system, and broke down frequently. The Rapier attacked many Argentine aircraft during the Falklands war. And initially it was claimed it achieved 14 kills and 6 probable kills.
But after the war, they looked closely at what was claimed, and decided the real numbers were, 1 confirmed kill, 2 probable kills and 2 possible kills.
Due to its poor performance during 1982, they quickly upgraded the system, and by quickly, I mean 1995. They put in a bigger warhead, and a proximity fuse, and increased its range by 20%
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/10/1310:13 AM
Originally Posted By: Mdore
Rapier entered service in 1971. It was designed to directly hit the target, so it had a tiny 1.4kg warhead and no proximity fuse. Its maximum range and altitude were only slightly better than shoulder launched SAMs. And it was optically guided, so could only be used during the day time and clear weather. Pretty terrible eh? But what can you expect from a light weight, highly mobile system?... except it wasn't highly mobile, it was a towed system that took a long time to set up.
By 1979, they realised it would be a good idea if the Rapier could be fired at targets even if it was dark, foggy or the aircraft were above clouds, so they added a Radar to a 1/3rd of them.
It was used to defend the British army during the Falklands war, but it was a fragile system, and broke down frequently. The Rapier attacked many Argentine aircraft during the Falklands war. And initially it was claimed it achieved 14 kills and 6 probable kills.
But after the war, they looked closely at what was claimed, and decided the real numbers were, 1 confirmed kill, 2 probable kills and 2 possible kills.
Due to its poor performance during 1982, they quickly upgraded the system, and by quickly, I mean 1995. They put in a bigger warhead, and a proximity fuse, and increased its range by 20%
I just don't think it's a very good system
That's why we have Eurofighters (& previously Tornado) The west has never really pursed the SAM route to the same extent the Soviets & Russians have.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/10/1306:02 PM
the UK had the Thunderbird until 1977? and Bloodhound till 1991. Both long range, high altitude systems.
But now, without the RAF, the army couldn't even shoot down a WW1 Zeppelin, since the British Army now only has the Javelin and Starstreak, and neither of those can go over 10,000ft. So much for being the best military in Europe. :P
Still, fingers crossed the UK will have CAMM in 2016, which is much more capable than the Rapier!
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/10/1308:24 PM
Originally Posted By: Mdore
I just don't think it's a very good system
Rapier had its fair share of mismanagement during the Falkland War.
- Blindfire radars were cleverly left in the UK, caused by logistics. - Second line repair equipment was left on Ascension (all optical tracking repair vehicles). - Planned practice firing at Ascension was cancelled. - Rapier SAM sites were located on hilltops, so they had to shoot downwards. (same mistake as the Syrians done in the Bekaa valley) - During Argentine attacks, there were so many British Helos around, that IFF was always RED. (they had to rely on visual ID only)
During the conflict, 61 missiles were fired, and killed 1 Dagger-A (Grupo 6, Rio Grande, C-436, Teniente Juan Doming Bernhart, killed during ejection). (25% of missiles went out of control after launch, and 60% were launched as deterrent - out of range)
In my opinion, Rapier was a capable system... ... but was stripped from its radar, and maintenance, plus were mismanaged badly during the conflict.
Oerlikon 35mm with Skyguard - 1 Harrier FRS1 (800Sqn, HMS Hermes, XZ450, "50", Lt N Taylor, KIA - no ejection) Roland - 1 Harrier FRS1 (801Sqn, HMS Invincible, "08", XZ456, Lt I Mortimer, ejected succesfully)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1307:11 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
First live shooting of the Greek S-300!!!
Why now? they are in Greece from more than 10 years...
They were expecting the Turks arrival in any minute, so they spared the missiles for them...
(Czech/Slovak army still not fired any S-300 missile since fielding it in 1988)
Does any body think that you can even fligh close to (Kreta) s300 clustered with TOR M1 and behind them two wings of F-16 bl52+adv supported by ground 3d radars and AWACS in net? Friendly air forces just ...beg for common exercises ...
Firings took place 10 years because the Russian system does not have the ability of destruct command in case of emergency ,prerequisite in order to fire,like all west air defense systems,but this was overcame with same kind of risk.Our Chief of Joint Staff is air defender !
Firings took place 10 years because the Russian system does not have the ability of destruct command in case of emergency ,prerequisite in order to fire,like all west air defense systems,but this was overcame with same kind of risk.Our Chief of Joint Staff is air defender !
Best regards ePap
Hi, ePap! Does Greek's goverment negotiate with Russia for using testing range in Ashuluk, Telemba or other? Do you have some info about it?
Firings took place 10 years because the Russian system does not have the ability of destruct command in case of emergency ,prerequisite in order to fire,like all west air defense systems,but this was overcame with same kind of risk.Our Chief of Joint Staff is air defender !
Best regards ePap
Hi, ePap! Does Greek's goverment negotiate with Russia for using testing range in Ashuluk, Telemba or other? Do you have some info about it?
During the initial training of the s300 PMU1 crews, firings took place in Russia for training and test of missile batch under delivery.
Please also keep in mind that there no necessity of real firing in order to have good training and exellent weapon performances for systems like this !
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1307:39 PM
Originally Posted By: ePap
Please also keep in mind that there no necessity of real firing in order to have good training and exellent weapon performances for systems like this !
I'm sorry, but not agreed.... Thanks for the info, anyway....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1307:46 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: ePap
Please also keep in mind that there no necessity of real firing in order to have good training and exellent weapon performances for systems like this !
I'm sorry, but not agreed.... Thanks for the info, anyway....
There is a particular reason not to agree ? I can refer to tenths of weapon systems which have no real firings for personel training ...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1308:10 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: ePap
There is a particular reason not to agree ? I can refer to tenths of weapon systems which have no real firings for personel training ...
Just IMHO... I am not a specialist... How about your experience? Did you feel different when do live firing?
In SHORAD you "feel" the target .It is a matter of "you or him" but you can move or switch off... In medium range like HAWK ,there is a lot of respiration , waiting there ... But in Long range s300 covered by TOR M1,you are looking for engagement ...
Of course live firings are good of moral and a greate opportunity to visit Creta (NAMFI) and Chania city,especially in summer time ...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1309:48 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
First live shooting of the Greek S-300!!!
Why now? they are in Greece from more than 10 years...
They were expecting the Turks arrival in any minute, so they spared the missiles for them...
(Czech/Slovak army still not fired any S-300 missile since fielding it in 1988... ... what about the Bulgarians?)
To be on the realistic side... ... the shelf time (10yrs) of the missiles is started to be expiring. Some of those will not be sent to mid life service. (cost saving)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/13/1309:52 PM
Originally Posted By: ePap
Firings took place 10 years because the Russian system does not have the ability of destruct command in case of emergency ,prerequisite in order to fire,like all west air defense systems,but this was overcame with same kind of risk.
Hmmm... ... interesting statement.
(Since Dvina, all Soviet SAM self destructed in case of guidance lost {except the Strela-1})
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/14/1309:57 AM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
First live shooting of the Greek S-300!!!
Why now? they are in Greece from more than 10 years...
They were expecting the Turks arrival in any minute, so they spared the missiles for them...
(Czech/Slovak army still not fired any S-300 missile since fielding it in 1988... ... what about the Bulgarians?)
To be on the realistic side... ... the shelf time (10yrs) of the missiles is started to be expiring. Some of those will not be sent to mid life service. (cost saving)
This product is based on the "Micro" training program, which was well know in Warsaw Pact armies (of course it was not digital at all)...
The author is a USSR veteran, which served in East Germany. I sugested this software to Hpasp in terms of updating VIKO's images, but I guess except noise effects, nothing could be added...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/14/1408:31 PM
Originally Posted By: piston79
This product is based on the "Micro" training program, which was well know in Warsaw Pact armies (of course it was not digital at all)...
The author is a USSR veteran, which served in East Germany. I sugested this software to Hpasp in terms of updating VIKO's images, but I guess except noise effects, nothing could be added...
Please respect my limitations simulating military hardware. I can not* simulate realistically anyequipment, that is still in service with the Hungarian Armed Forces. (P-14, P-18, KUB, Mistral)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/14/1408:39 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Please respect my limitations simulating military hardware. I will not simulate realistically anyequipment, that is still in service with the Hungarian Armed Forces. (P-14, P-18, KUB, Mistral)
I think you're overreacting a bit... Those are just target acquisition radars...
I don't know anything about any "drone codes", but what "codes" Tor-M1 has that can possibly be compromised? The only codes that come to mind are IFF, but these are changing regularly, and AFAIK Iranians don't use Tor's built-in IFF system anyway. Built-in "kill switch"?
I don't know anything about any "drone codes", but what "codes" Tor-M1 has that can possibly be compromised? The only codes that come to mind are IFF, but these are changing regularly, and AFAIK Iranians don't use Tor's built-in IFF system anyway. Built-in "kill switch"?
Data != Codes.
Information, system frequency, gains, jam resistance/sensitivity, frequency agility and modes, missile capability (at a system level or only performance). All of this is useful for dealing with a hostile SAM.
Some may prevent engagement at all, others may increase the odds of survival of it's targets, or destruction of the launch vehicle.
The Israeli Codes can be modified easily enough once the compromise is known if a change is considered desirable and cost effective, but changing the parameters of a SAM system takes a much greater effort if it is at all feasible. There might be a knock on effect if US uses compatible systems to the Israeli ones etc, but the compromise may not be as significant as the engineering data on the TOR if it is reasonably complete.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/29/1408:50 PM
Originally Posted By: Lieste
Data != Codes.
Information, system frequency, gains, jam resistance/sensitivity, frequency agility and modes, missile capability (at a system level or only performance). All of this is useful for dealing with a hostile SAM.
Some may prevent engagement at all, others may increase the odds of survival of it's targets, or destruction of the launch vehicle.
The Israeli Codes can be modified easily enough once the compromise is known if a change is considered desirable and cost effective, but changing the parameters of a SAM system takes a much greater effort if it is at all feasible. There might be a knock on effect if US uses compatible systems to the Israeli ones etc, but the compromise may not be as significant as the engineering data on the TOR if it is reasonably complete.
The original article clearly mentions some "codes" in relation not only to Israeli drones, but also in relation to Iranian Tors ("in exchange Russia provided Israel with codes for Iranian Tor-M1", a direct translation). I highly doubt that Russians would provide any useful technical data about Iranian Tors to Israel because of one reason: export Tors are way too similar to those used by Russian Army, compromising Iranian ones would also compromise the Russian ones. Therefore I suppose that even if some information was given to Israel (which I highly doubt), this may be codes to activate a some kind of "kill switch", which is built into these export systems by manufacturer.
P. S.: If you can read Russian, please read first post at my link - some interesting info from a man "in the loop": http://www.balancer.ru/g/p2739880
One phrase from there: "It appears that Iranians, fearing of "zakladki" (there is an opinion that their fears are not unfounded), aren't using Tor's built-in IFF system". ("Zakladki" is a Russian term for "kill switch", or some other "trojan horse" function in some hardware or software).
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/30/1410:41 AM
Stealth was never really meant to act alone. It's supposed to be used in conjuction with stand off jammers, decoys and SEAD. When used as part of a whole, stealth can still be very useful.
Used alone, with no jammers, decoys and SEAD, then you get situations like the F-117 shootdown over Serbia in 1999.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/17/1403:53 PM
In Ukrainian news, it's been reported that a Malaysian B777 was shot down at around 10km by a separatist operated Buk system, probably captured from the Ukrainian air defence forces. Is this plausible, that is, is it plausible that they could have, independently from Russian aid, gotten the battery operational enough to make a simple engagement like this?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/17/1410:10 PM
Originally Posted By: ckfinite
In Ukrainian news, it's been reported that a Malaysian B777 was shot down at around 10km by a separatist operated Buk system, probably captured from the Ukrainian air defence forces. Is this plausible, that is, is it plausible that they could have, independently from Russian aid, gotten the battery operational enough to make a simple engagement like this?
Why not? It's not like more than a few Ukrainian servicemen haven't sworn allegiance to Russia and/or imaginary separatist republics. Besides, IIRC Ukraine has conscription, so even among the civilian population it shouldn't take long to find people trained on various SAM systems.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/21/1405:20 PM
Russians hint on same circumstances as were on Tu-154 incident. (starting from 15:00) Lies or possibility?
----------------------- Politics please aside, Just curious could buk missile cw monopulse seeker behave same as in Tu-154 incident on certain circumstances.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/21/1405:53 PM
Well the Russians is not leading the investigation. Putin MUST stop supplying advanced weapons to the terrorists. Anyway you look at this all the blood is on Putin's hands.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/21/1406:15 PM
Originally Posted By: montieris
Russians hint on same circumstances as were on Tu-154 incident. (starting from 15:00) Lies or possibility?
So they're saying it wasn't shot down by a SAM? (After that incident, the Russians vehemently denied that it was even possible for a SAM to be the cause of the crash until the Ukrainian government admitted it was an errant SAM).
It's a lie. In '01 it was a matter of a SAM launched at a target drone which was destroyed before it got there, and then locked on to the airliner by mistake. I seriously doubt that the Ukrainian military would A, do that again, or B, all of a sudden do these sort of training drills over something that is an active war zone, close to the border of Russia, and over inhabited major urban centers. Just one of those factors would mean it'd never get clearance.
It's obvious. Who's the only people in that region who's been shooting down everything they can for the last few weeks? Probably those guys.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/21/1407:26 PM
Originally Posted By: montieris
Lies or possibility?
----------------------- Politics please aside, Just curious could buk missile cw monopulse seeker behave same as in Tu-154 incident on certain circumstances.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/24/1406:10 AM
There are some videos from an american museum in youtube. Probably it is worthy to contact those guys and they will help with more pictures and order of procedures.
Due to the missing K4 command (introduced at the Volhov) transmitting the missile/target approach speed, the Iron Dome missile's laser proximity fuse does not have a clue for correct warhead detonation delay.
Anyway, it is hard to knock off small tubes from the sky with shrapnel, without using nukes...
Due to the missing K4 command (introduced at the Volhov) transmitting the missile/target approach speed, the Iron Dome missile's laser proximity fuse does not have a clue for correct warhead detonation delay.
Anyway, it is hard to knock off small tubes from the sky with shrapnel, without using nukes...
It's quite a mystery which kind of proximity fuse Iron Dome's Tamir missile is using. On some photos, there's no slightest sign of laser sensors on a missile...
...On the other hand, this photo, which supposedly shows part of Tamir, clearly shows laser sensors and a homing head:
In any case, use of laser proximity fuse in a missile designed for engaging such targets as small rockets is surprising, to say the least: the small object may simply fell between the two narrow laser beams.
Even its guidance principle is a mystery: Upper photo clearly shows some kind of homing head (supposedly an active one, but how can one manage to fit an ARH head into the $50000 missile?!), but the photo below doesn't leave much room inside the nosecone for it:
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/28/1405:52 AM
Quote:
It's quite a mystery which kind of proximity fuse Iron Dome's Tamir missile is using. On some photos, there's no slightest sign of laser sensors on a missile...
In any case, use of laser proximity fuse in a missile designed for engaging such targets as small rockets is surprising, to say the least: the small object may simply fell between the two narrow laser beams.
I know nothing about laser proximity fuses. But as a guess, surely it's possible that a laser fuse could be sending out light in a fan shaped pattern, and not a bunch of thin beams?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/28/1403:02 PM
Originally Posted By: Mdore
I know nothing about laser proximity fuses. But as a guess, surely it's possible that a laser fuse could be sending out light in a fan shaped pattern, and not a bunch of thin beams?
Probably, but I never heard about it. I know that Russians were forced to replace laser fuse with RF on 9M311 missile (used in Tunguska and naval Kortik) to improve its efficiency against small-sized targets.
Why, back in my day during OIF 1, we had this one female lieutenant get so excited with a blip on her screen that she fired off and blasted some Limey pilot out of his Tornado. Naturally, she was immediately given a Silver Star and promoted to Captain for being the first ADA officer to actually do something since Vietnam, but that was back in 2003. After the subsequent rash of copycat attacks, the Air Force started getting on our ass about fratricide.
Valiant spat a stream of tobacco juice on the floor as emphasis. I told those fairy pukes that if it flies it dies! Can I get a damn hooah?
Quote:
Im damn proud of your self-discipline, the brigade commander said in his closing remarks. If we keep this up, DoD might actually let us start loading live missiles back into our Patriot launchers.
Due to the missing K4 command (introduced at the Volhov) transmitting the missile/target approach speed, the Iron Dome missile's laser proximity fuse does not have a clue for correct warhead detonation delay.
Anyway, it is hard to knock off small tubes from the sky with shrapnel, without using nukes...
It's quite a mystery which kind of proximity fuse Iron Dome's Tamir missile is using. On some photos, there's no slightest sign of laser sensors on a missile...
...On the other hand, this photo, which supposedly shows part of Tamir, clearly shows laser sensors and a homing head:
If you look at the arrangement, the optical aperture is in the same plane as the leading fins, and near the 'flappy bit' (could be an umbilical for the launch cannister?). This makes it behind the upper canard and out of sight...
Is this a rolling airframe missile with a directed warhead?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/21/1407:26 AM
Thanks, the description says it is a computer training system, on the screen there are two IKO's, but those switches and other stuff does not look familiar to me.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/28/1405:08 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Sorry for the unrelated pic... ... Greek Mirage in the Aegean sea.
For your information, this plane was recovered (see below) in dt time and it was about to repaired but the model stoped to be in production line this time (2011) and mechanical parts could not reached,unfortunately. Of course all the parts are used as spear parts .
In a same situation in 1997 the plane recovered and repaired and flies now ...
PS: it is not so easy to land a plane in the sea and in this condition, i think ...
Thanks! It is straight from DED MOROZ bag! Happy New Year to all!
Yes, that's great. Since I am an electronics engineer, it is a great background of SAM systems for me. It is interesting that (most probably) for reliability purposes and for easy maintenance there are discrete SMT (non-SMD) parts even in this days when everything is integrated.
MOSCOW, April 13. /TASS/. China has purchased S-400 missile defense systems from Russia, director general of Russia's major arms exporting company Rosoborobexport Anatoly Isaykin has told the Kommersant daily in an interview. Isaykin refused to disclose terms of contract but confirmed that China had become the first buyer of the cutting-edge air defense system. He noted that it emphasizes the strategic nature of Russian-Chinese relations.
(President Putin signed an order to cancel the SA-10 embargo against Iran)...
I do not believe that it is about the medium range SA-10, rather it will be the long range SA-20. Question on the number of systems, exact type (PMU1 or PMU2), and real delivery date (after long promises). At least few elderly S-200 site can be relieved.
(President Putin signed an order to cancel the SA-10 embargo against Iran)...
I do not believe that it is about the medium range SA-10, rather it will be the long range SA-20. Question on the number of systems, exact type (PMU1 or PMU2), and real delivery date (after long promises). At least few elderly S-200 site can be relieved.
nope at all ... i assume in Agreement wrote PMU with 150 range
(President Putin signed an order to cancel the SA-10 embargo against Iran)...
I do not believe that it is about the medium range SA-10, rather it will be the long range SA-20. Question on the number of systems, exact type (PMU1 or PMU2), and real delivery date (after long promises). At least few elderly S-200 site can be relieved.
nope at all ... i assume in Agreement wrote PMU with 150 range
The S-300 family export versions so far...
Obsoleted systems (from export point of view), no longer produced
1989, S-300PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) exported into East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, China 5V55K missile 47*km range 5V55R missile 75km range *Command guided only
1994, S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) exported into China, Greece, Algeria, Vietnam 48N6E missile 150km range
2004, S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B) exported into China 48N6E2 missile 200km range
Available now, for foreign export
2013, S-300VM Antey-2500 (SA-23) exported into Egypt, Venezuela 9M82ME missile 200*km range 9M83ME missile 75*km range *ATBM missile
201x, S-400 Triumf (SA-21) will be exported into China 48N6DM missile 250km range 9M96 missile 30*km range *ATBM missile
The original 800 million US contract signed in 2007, between Iran and Russia was agreed on the delivery of five S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) systems, according to the Hungarian media.
Shipment was halted in 2010 by Dmitry Medvedev, thus Iran sued Russia for 4000 million US of non delivery penalty, based on the signed original contract. (most probably Iran will won that lawsuit at the face of an international court)
Interesting fact is that the S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) meanwhile become obsolete, and no longer produced.
The S-300VM Antey-2500 (SA-23) is extremely expensive (Egypt payed 3600 million US for only two systems), and the S-400 Triumf (SA-21) is still considered sensitive (till the S-500 become available), and offered only to the old-trusted buyer, China.
Israeli F-16I pilots use Greeces S-300 SAMs to prepare for potential Iran air strikes...
Thanks to the exercise in Greece (not the first attended by the Israeli since the deterioration of their relations with Turkey), the Israeli Air Force has gathered important data about the Russian SAM system and had the opportunity to test and improve evasion tactics during simulated attacks against ground targets protected by S-300 batteries.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/14/1512:03 PM
Created some drawing to help you understand, that modern SAM missiles are rather an endgame (semi active) guided ballistic missiles, than anything else.
Here are some classic SAM designs...
... and here are the modern SAM's. (Patriot/S-300/-400)
the upper one is a SCUD ballistic missile.
Usual flight path of the Patriot/S-300/-400 missiles is a ballistic one:
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/05/1503:09 PM
The S-350 Vityaz is planned to use the 9M96 missile family (max range 120km), originally developed for the S-400/S-300PMU2... ... and the 9M100 new short range one.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/27/1511:36 AM
Wow, they really wanted to shoot it down.
But I guess having been economical with missiles wouldn't have been good enough to compensate for if the SCUD had caused casualties, or even just not been intercepted.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/27/1501:48 PM
From MAKS-15... ... new H-58 (USKE-TP) version with additional infra target channel.
Multi channel SAM radar tracking approach is similar as the AGM-88E HARM realized with active mm radar... ... similar problem of EMCON, just different solution.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/06/1511:17 AM
I would say both, these pictures they uploaded to Czechoslovak forum at http://forum.fortifikace.net, but in the past they sent me some nice Vega and other videos from our SAM sites.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/06/1506:36 PM
Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
I would say both, these pictures they uploaded to Czechoslovak forum at http://forum.fortifikace.net, but in the past they sent me some nice Vega and other videos from our SAM sites.
I wish I could share them, but I need their exact locations, as I cannot navigate on slovakian/Czech....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/20/1504:40 PM
So far deployment of the S-400 was advertised in the press... ...but in reality, I seen only 4x S-300PM PU's (TEL's) arriving into Syria.
No RPN (Tomb Stone) fire control radar was seen so far... (meaning that the S-300PM SAM unit is still not battle ready)
Based on their license plates (50's), they are originally based in the Moscow region.
Still funny when they raised their missile containers for the press, while no data tele-code antenna is extended, and the cable harness (towards the fire control radar) is untouched...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/20/1504:59 PM
That's why I don't like the decision to place operators near the antenna....
You either put the operators close to the antenna, to be able to see and act on primary radar returns (as in the S-300), or you can put your operators far away from the radar station (as in Patriot), but in this case they can fight only against computer generated icons (radar information processed by the computer in the RS) on their screens.
Russians so far seen more jamming, and ARM's than anyone, so they selected to show to the operators the primary radar return of the target.
Raytheon designer of the HARM missile beside the Patriot system, knowing its (current and future) capabilities, selected to move the operators far from the radar station (limiting their access to primary radar battle information).
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/20/1505:18 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
That's why I don't like the decision to place operators near the antenna....
You either put the operators close to the antenna, to be able to see and act on primary radar returns (as in the S-300), or you can put your operators far away from the radar station (as in Patriot), but in this case they can fight only against computer generated icons (radar information processed by the computer in the RS) on their screens.
Oh, and how it works with VIKO in SA-2 and 3 or azimuth/range and epsilon in SA-2 and 3, but doesn't work on S-300/400?... There is no sense to me....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/20/1505:26 PM
Difference is on the wavelength cm vs m.
You can have a Yagi TV antenna at the top of your roof, and transfer the metric wavelength signal on a flexible long coax cable into your TV set... ... on the other hand if you want to transfer cm wavelength radio signal without huge loss, you need a short vacuum filled rigid feeder tube, at a specific diameter of the transmitter wavelength.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/20/1506:05 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
... on the other hand if you want to transfer cm wavelength radio signal without huge loss, you need a short vacuum filled rigid feeder tube, at a specific diameter of the transmitter wavelength.
They do this from SNR/UNV.... Also, they could just transfer video of the signal....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/21/1509:53 AM
And they can do it with the S-300PMU RPN also, when they attach it at the top of the 40V6M pole. The catch here is the max. length that you can do it. (still inside the ARM warhead range)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/28/1507:56 PM
Quote:
Because of the extensive air defense threat, coordination among the Services to provide mutual support was essential to Operation Desert Storm's success. The JFACC tasked apportioned SEAD sorties, guaranteeing a coordinated, effective, and prioritized SEAD effort. Almost all Coalition aircraft contributed. In their 38 first combat use, ATACMS demonstrated a rapid response capability. A Multiple launch rocket system launcher, armed with ATACMS, received a fire mission while moving in convoy, occupied a hasty firing position, computed firing data and launched a missile that neutralized an SA-2 site. (1992, 214)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/30/1608:48 PM
Hello everybody !
It seems to me there is a lot of air defense systems afficionados here !
Here is my modest contribution:
Here is a video about the joint firing between the French Air Force's 05/950 Air Defense Squadron and the Italian Army's 4th Anti Air Artillery Regiment with the SAMP/T (nicknamed "mamba" in the French Air Force)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/17/1611:40 AM
Originally Posted By: piston79
[quote=farokh]
Now, you must buy a beer for every SAM fan in this forum!
Congratulation!
as u knew befor.. iran is kind of islamic country . so i prefer buy big bothles of beer in hpasp's home for all of samsim users.. even new members cheers from now
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 02/19/1607:36 PM
Recently Russia exported only the S-300PMU1 (SA-20A) to more than one nation. The S-300V (SA-12) was exported only to Venezuela so far. The S-300PMU2 (SA-20B) was exported only to China so far.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/20/1604:11 PM
What is interesting of these shots... Firing ranges are drawn at the top of this shot.
Dark Blue - 48N6 - 150km Yellow - 48N6D - 200km White - 48N6DM - 250km White blue - ??? - over 300km!!! <- this zone is pretty interesting, as its slowly increasing in altitude reaching the usual 27km at 180km only.
The left screen has 12 horizontal lines, could mean 12 target channels instead of the usual 6???
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/20/1607:30 PM
The second picture led me to thought the same about target channels, but somewhere I have read that S-400 can track (I am not sure, will try to find it again) 32 or 64 targets (and I think this was valid during preliminary testing, it can be more in production units).
But on the other side I can not imagine how a few people can handle so many targets (in case it does not work like Patriot in full auto mode).
However your finding about a "mysterious missile type" is very interesting
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/20/1607:39 PM
It looks like the mysterious missile must be 40N6 (see here).
The same source notes that 92N6E can track 100 targets and have 6 target channels. But at Almaz-Antey (here) they note 36 target channels with 72 missile channels.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/22/1608:32 PM
Copy of a site: try Offline Explorer, I used it in the past with great success. It also includes various parsers (Javascript for example) and it can also work with password protected sites.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/23/1607:06 PM
........Thanks Alien... Anyway, I think I cannot handle it...
... Meanwhile some events are going in Airforce museum in Belgrade this days...:
24. mart Svečano otvaranje u 14 časova Pozdravni govor g. Petra Nedeljkovića, predstavnika Muzeja vazduhoplovstva Beograd Beseda generala Spasoja Smiljanića sećanja na NATO agresiju Prikazivanje dokumentarnog filma o NATO agresiji i obilazak postavke posvećene NATO agresiji pod nazivom Eksponati koji su padali sa neba
25. mart 12 časova Beseda borbene posluge 3. diviziona, 250. raketne brigade VJ o obaranju aviona F-117A i F-16 Prikazivanje dokumentarnog filma o NATO agresiji Obilazak na temu NATO avijacije i nae avijacije uz razgledanje maketa i uniformi iz tog vremena
26. i 27. mart 12 časova Prikazivanje dokumentarnog filma o NATO agresiji i obilazak postavke
- there were 5 tank and motor-rifle divisions on full numbers, 5 on reduced numbers and 5 "stored" divisions to be mobilized from 1969 to 1989 + some reserve and training divisions to be mobilized whose numbers varied (two to three up to 1989 and not planned to be mobilized according to last war plan from 1989)
- AAA regiments of divisions without SAMs were also equipped with czechoslovak domestic 57mm AA gun unusualy designated as "57mm PLK vzor CS", more info: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/57mm%20Czech.htm
- tank and motor-rifle regiments without SA-9/SA-13 has usually AA battery consisting of six M53/59, however at some point M53/59 were subordinated directly to battalions
- SA-7 was produced locally but it was available in significant numbers only from 1980s, motor-rifle battalion had 9 launchers
- there were also independed AAA regiments in ground forces subordinated directly to armies with 85mm and 130mm AA guns, they were disbanded in 1970s-1980s
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/03/1609:07 AM
In Czechoslovakia only Strela-2M was available. Strela-3 was offered by Soviets but refused here. At the end of 1980s there was negotiation with Soviets to obtain licence for production of Igla-1 but end of Cold war stopped that deal. Slovakia then bought Igla after dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
Now thinking about ~ 200kW power used within a few km of protection instead of the previous "MW" level, and hundreds of kilometers ranged powerful lasers. No mention of the Free Electron Laser from which a few years ago was proclaimed a large world-saving technology. Currently, the most important technological problems: -The Current laser technologies has only ~30% efficiency, a significant move forward from here is difficult (ie: with an optical 200kW performance laser, you need to get rid of circa 460kW thermal heat). -The providing optical 'window' purity of the salt water, and dirt. -The problem of atmospheric factors (humidity, fog, rain) at greater distances
EMRG (Electro Magnetic Rail Gun): Current technical problems: - Barrel life - Upgrade current 8MJ muzzle energy to 32MJ - Dissipating barrel heating during 10 rounds/minute rate of fire - Size And weight requirement for existing ships (~ 600 tons per moments of a 32MJ EMRG gun, in Burke only 60 tons available)
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/17/1611:07 AM
S-500 news...
The long-range high intercept S-500 complex with extended ballistic missile defense capabilities is planned to enter operational readiness in 2016. Open sources say the S-500 will be capable of simultaneously engaging up to 10 targets traveling at speeds of up to seven kilometers per second, which is an approximate speed of intercontinental ballistic missile nuclear warheads entering the atmosphere. The killing range of the complex is reported to be 600 kilometers, while the altitude of a target engaged could be near 180-200 kilometers. Russian Aerospace Forces are reportedly planning to purchase five S-500 complexes up to the year 2020. The S-500 complexes are going to be integrated into the A-135 (and successive A-235) Moscow air defense system.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 04/17/1607:15 PM
Nice Interesting is info about 40N6, our "mysterious" missile from S-400. It is interesting it can be launched also from S-300 series. And more interesting is its maximum height of flight of 180km, can't wait to read some more info about this missile....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 05/01/1606:57 PM
Regarding Czechoslovak SA-8. According to veterans there were 5 batteries with OSA-AKM in 5th AA Regiment, Zatec (1st Tank Division) and one battery with OSA-AK in Jaromer training centre. Can somebody check this against russian sources that Czechoslovakia received 6 SA-8 batteries?
EDIT: Import of one OSA-AK battery in 1980 is confirmed by MoD publication. The battery served for training but included live firing.
my translation, page 31: "The first firing and technical battery was transferred to us from at that time the Soviet Union in 1980 to garrison in Jaromer. In August 1982 took place warranty firing in soviet firing range Asuluk with excellent assement. Shortly after that was decided to equip whole regiment."
It would be nice to have export list for army air defences as you have presented for SA-2 and SA-3. May be we could find more surprises. Thank you for your effort with SAM Simulator and please continue.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 07/23/1605:03 PM
Historical background about the REDEYE (predecessor of Stinger) MANPAD system. Always nice when civilian weapon experts state their opinion on military topics...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/10/1606:53 PM
I do not have time to watch whole video now. I have not heard anything about it, did some Swedish troops come for Ample strike?
Anyway, even if we added it to our inventory (now we have only RBS-70 MANPAD and a few upgraded Kubs) it would be a complete tragedy, after more than 50 years with Dvina, Volchov, Neva, Vega and S-300 (and of course Krug, Kub and Osa)
Ahhh my heart hpasp ... ahhh my heart Dont show these dolls over here I am so disapointed that we hadnt it on samsim This is the most tragic subject around the simulation world
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 10/11/1611:01 AM
Quote:
On Dec. 7, the Israeli air force carried out a series of surgical air strikes inside Syria. Such strikes are not uncommon in Syria and Lebanonthe Israelis frequently attack convoys carrying weapons to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and to and degrade Syrian regime forces in southwestern Syria. But the Dec. 7 strike was fairly unique. For one, much of the air raid was captured on camera. And the video and photographic evidence reveals some very interesting Israeli tactics.
Two formation of Israeli fighter jets, each consisting of two F-15s, entered Syrian airspace at 1600 local time from the direction of Lebanon, heading from west to east toward Damascus at very high altitude and high speed.
The wide spacing between the Israeli jetsboth within each two-ship formation and between the two separate pairsis noteworthy. Theres a good probable cause for this arrangement. Israeli fighters almost definitely were using electronic jamming to prevent Syrian air defense radars from tracking them at long distance. Russian-made air defense systems, including those in Syrias possession, include specific means of countering sophisticated enemy jamming. In the absence of passive radars and an integrated air defense network, Syrian systems could probably still track the azimuth and elevation of incoming jamming signals via their own receiversalbeit with a considerable error margin.
That data could cue Syrian missile batteries optical sensors and allow the operators to fire toward the intruders. The spacing between the Israeli F-15s made the error margins overlap and thus made the Syrians direction-finding even less accurate, buying valuable time for the planes to get close to their targets.
At rightthe F-15s contrails are at left. The contrails on the right are from Buk missiles. At topIsraeli air force F-15Isl
Even under heavy jamming, Syrian Buk-M2 missile batteries stationed at Mezzeh airport managed to fire two missiles toward the first formation. The Israelis responded with a simple movethey changed direction.
In long-distance shots, medium-range surface-to-air missiles predict a point of impact ahead of incoming aircraft and travel a ballistic trajectory to reach that point. In the last phase of flight, the missile would correct its trajectory using its seeker. A significant change in the targets direction would mean that the missile would not find the aircraft in the predicted zone.
The first formation of F-15s drew the Syrian missiles toward themselves then turned toward north and released their weapons, striking a small airstrip called Al Sharai in Dimas region west of Damascus. The first formation then made a hard turn to the west and returned to Lebanese skies. Not far behind, the second formation had already entered Syria.
The pair of F-15s approached Damascus head onthis time the Buk-M2 battery apparently waited for the intruders to change their direction or close in.
The Israeli F-15s released their standoff weapons and made a hard left turn toward the south. Two more Syrian missiles snaked into the skythe contrails indicating SA-3s. These missiles werent aiming for Israeli jets but for the missiles they had fired.
One of the SA-3s hit its target. The wreckage of a Popeye guided missile fell to the ground. The Popeye is a stand-off missile with a warhead weighing 700 pounds. It uses combination of infrared imagery and inertial guidance to precisely attack targets up to 50 miles away from the launch point.
The wreckage of the Popeye missile.
The surviving missiles from the second pair of F-15s struck vehicles and supplies on a ramp at Damascus international airport.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/05/1601:01 PM
5 Bidders Emerge in Competition for Czech Republic Air Defense Systems
Five companies have submitted offers to supply mid-range air defense systems to the Czech Ministry of Defense. These include Lockheed Martin, MBDA, Kongsberg, Rafael and Diehl, according to Vladimir Lukovsky, a spokesperson for the Czech ministry.
Under the plan, the new missiles are to replace the Czech Republics Soviet-built 2K 12M KUB M systems. The outdated missiles are to be decommissioned in 2020, and the Czech ministry aims to acquire new air defense systems by then.
In the first phase of the procurement, Prague is planning to purchase less than 10 new batteries. The procurement is estimated to be worth at least 6 billion krona (US $246 million).
"According to the information obtained, the offers include the Lockheed Martin/MBDA MEADS system, Israeli Rafael Spyder system, Kongsbergs NASAMS SAM, as well as the German Diehl IRIS-T SLM system."
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/23/1608:07 PM
It is simply a bad joke. They push for the MiG-29 replacement, that acted like a goat during war.
Let's be specific, in 99 there were opposing to the entire NATO; 14 MiG-29, 12 Neva complex and 20 KUB complex.
14pcs MiG-29, included 4 inoperable at the beginning of the war. (typical)
At the first night of the war, half of the MiG-29 fleet was engaging, and 4 were shot down.
Second night of the war, 2 MiG-29 engaged NATO, and both were shot down.
At the 3rd night, Yugoslavia had 4 inoperable (cannibalized) MiG-29, 1 crashed in accident, so only 3 MiG-29 left combat ready.
During the remaining 75 the nights of the war, this 3 deployable MiG-29 flown only four (!!!) combat missions, by loosing one another plane, still without any result.
During 2009, one another MiG-29 fighter crashed, so only 3 MiG-29 left intact as of today. (not counting MiG-29UBs)
12 Neva systems (all in operable condition) started the war. NATO acknowledged, that they killed 2 planes (F-117, F-16). During the 78 nights of the war, they engaged 50 times, launching 98 missiles. 6 complexes are active today, during the war 5 received damage beyond repair, and one was cannibalized for parts.
20pcs KUB batteries were unable to succeed against the ALE-50. They opened fire 46 times, by launching 70 missiles. 12 KUB system remained active after the end of the war ...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/30/1605:11 PM
Here is a tough nut for SAM system experts from Iran:
These are the first official publicized photos of what should be the guidance radar of the Talash system with its Sayyad-2 SAM.
My take on what can be seen: The illumination radar is apparently formed by two separate trucks with two separate dishes. The truck seen in the third photo has a strange dish for a radar system as its seems to have a LNB type receiver only, no transmitting feed system can be seen. What can be seen are two directional transmitters at the sides for mid-course update proposes.
The illumination radar transmitter can be seen in the second photo. So the question that arises is why not integrating the illumination and tracking radar on one truck such as in some other Iranian illumination and tracking radars? The answer for me is the use of continuous wave illumination which cant be archived with a integrated transmitter-receiver system (at least not by older generation mechanically steered systems with high power output). Namely one of the purposes for this Talash system is to replace the massive 5N62 illumination radar of the S-200 with a mobile illumination system. So would a illumination radar which has FMCW transmitter receiver separation requirements, separated by space on two separate trucks be able to split the 5N62 to two smaller mobile systems?
I wonder how useful the lock on after launch capability of the S-200 is, for which the large data-link dish of the 5N62 would be used. If a LOAL system is operationally useful for the S-200, then the question arises whether the two directional antenna feed horns of the receiver truck mentioned above would be sufficient to maintain data-link with the S-200 missile at longer ranges, because its much smaller than the data link dish of the 5N62.
Beside the benefits of replacing the 5N62 with a new mobile illumination radar (called Ofoq apparently), there should also be a improvement of lock-on performance against more agile maneuvering fighter-type targets. The reduced masses and inertia of this smaller system together with improved steering system available today would reduce one of the biggest weak points the S-200 is claimed to have.
The S-200 in Iranian service already uses other detection radars other than the P-14 if necessary, including mobile long range radars available in the IADS. With a mobile replacement for the 5N62 an a mobile medium range SAM with the Sayyad-2, the long range SAM component of the Talash-S200 hybrid would be the last remaining static component of the system (at least a non-emitting one compared to the 5N62 and P-14). The huge radiopower of the S-200 would make this system a quite robust and deadly one especially if digitalized and equipped with new computers and solid-state components.
What is your take and what you think about this interpretation.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/30/1607:06 PM
Originally Posted By: Patarames
I wonder how useful the lock on after launch capability of the S-200 is, for which the large data-link dish of the 5N62 would be used. If a LOAL system is operationally useful for the S-200, then the question arises whether the two directional antenna feed horns of the receiver truck mentioned above would be sufficient to maintain data-link with the S-200 missile at longer ranges, because its much smaller than the data link dish of the 5N62.
S-200 does NOT have any datalink. What is questionable is RPC frequency sampling ability of the missile, but it does not even come close to any datalink. There are three antennas on 5N62 - transmit, receive and KRO (which you probably mean is used for datalink (similarly to S(A)-75 RPK antenna), but it in fact receives signal from missile in flight which indicates that missile's GSN has lost the target lock).
Lock on after launch is used in S-200 in cases where for example trees block line of sight from missile's GSN to target. Because RPC is usually located on an elevated platform in such cases, so it does see the target at the moment of lauch, while the missile does not.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/30/1608:10 PM
I thought the radio/data-link used for LOAL could have a tactical use in emission controlled IADS operation. But your SAM sim indicate that it has no tactical use.
I had a few minutes to further research on the S-200-Talash topic. While the CW radars 5N62 and HIPIR of the HAWK use two separate antenna for transmit and receive CW signals, the 1S91 of the SA-6 uses a single antenna. So my impression was false.
The system in the third photo is directly connected to the Sayyad-2 SAM but the larger antenna system in the second photo is unknown and could be a 1S91 like design for FMCW illumination of the S-200. But for that task the antenna seems to be too small, hence this system could be a early Sayyad-2 illumination radar replaced by the more advanced one in the third photo.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/31/1608:58 PM
Might be interesting to compare F-35 prices to the S-300P area denial export versions.
Of course, F-35(in case not cancelled by the elected POTUS) can be afforded only by the the world's richest countries... ... on the other hand;
S-300PMU Volkhov-M6 (SA-10B); Bulgaria - 1pcs, Slovakia -1pcs, China - 4pcs; 75km ranged 5V55R missiles; 55m$ per systems
S-300PMU1 Volkhov-M6M (SA-20A); China - 4pcs, Greece - 2pcs, Vietnam - 2pcs; 150km ranged 48N6E missiles; 115m$ per systems
S-300PMU2 Favorit (SA-20B); China - 16pcs, Algeria - 4pcs, Iran 5(?)pcs; 200km ranged 48N6E2 missiles; 125m$ per systems
S-400 Triumph (SA-21) had a marketing kickoff just this year, with expected deliveries only after 2020. Possible buyers; (China 6pcs, India 5pcs); 380km ranged 40N6E missiles; 500m$ per systems !!!
Symbols on the indicator screen are quite straightforward. FDC in the center, two radars (Sentinel) near it and six launchers (MML) with three of them having targets assigned to them. Targets have their ID, bearing, position and track visible. On the right there is a target table with target 1326 selected.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/29/1702:29 PM
I have no information on those, recently most countries are buying Area Denial SAM systems (S-300PMU1/2, Patriot GEM), or ABM capable SAMs (Patriot PAC3).
You can consider NASAMS-II as a middle range modern SAM system, where I have 2 public deals...
2009, Finland paid 346 million Euros for 4 complete batteries; 4x(1 FDC, 2 Sentinel, 6 MML) 2016, Lithuania paid 112 million USD for 2 stripped down batteries 2x(1 FDC, 1 Sentinel, 2 MML)
In 2014, Spain received used Patriot Standard batteries from Germany. Paid 51 millionUSD for 2 batteries, 10 launchers, and 8 STD missiles.
No other medium range deal is in my papers for the last ~10 years, except Russia donating some used S-300PT/PS systems to friendly ex-Soviet Republics for free...
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/30/1706:47 PM
"Satellite imagery shows that the UAE Air Force and Air Defence have deployed the AN/TPY-2 radar along with its THAAD battery operating near the coast."
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/30/1707:25 PM
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
I have no information on those, recently most countries are buying Area Denial SAM systems (S-300PMU1/2, Patriot GEM), or ABM capable SAMs (Patriot PAC3).
You can consider NASAMS-II as a middle range modern SAM system, where I have 2 public deals...
2009, Finland paid 346 million Euros for 4 complete batteries; 4x(1 FDC, 2 Sentinel, 6 MML) 2016, Lithuania paid 112 million USD for 2 stripped down batteries 2x(1 FDC, 1 Sentinel, 2 MML)
In 2014, Spain received used Patriot Standard batteries from Germany. Paid 51 millionUSD for 2 batteries, 10 launchers, and 8 STD missiles.
No other medium range deal is in my papers for the last ~10 years, except Russia donating some used S-300PT/PS systems to friendly ex-Soviet Republics for free...
Thanks!
It is pretty strange now, with those multi functional systems, to separate them by range....
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/23/1709:11 PM
Huge fire in Balaklea artillery and missile storage depot, Charkiv. An act of sabotage is suspected. Reportedly, some older "Buk" missiles were stored there and you can see them flying (ex. around 3:00):
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/23/1709:18 PM
Originally Posted by Jonas85
Huge fire in Balaklea artillery and missile storage depot, Charkiv. An act of sabotage is suspected. Reportedly, some older "Buk" missiles were stored there and you can see them flying (ex. around 3:00):
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 03/27/1708:17 PM
Originally Posted by Hpasp
Interesting cost comparison...
1957 one S-25 regiment / (20 target channel) system cost (including huge building project) - 180mR one V-300 missile price ~180'000 R
one S-75 battery / (1 target channel) system cost - 11,3mR one V-750 missile price ~183'000 R
one Dal regiment price 105mR one V-400 missile price ~190'000 R
1978 one S-300P battery price (6 target channel) - 14mR Regimental command point cost (5K56CP + 5N64 RLO [Big Bird]) - 10 mR one V-500K missile price 60'000 R one V-500R missile price 90'000 R
Please don't forget that in year 1961 Soviet rouble was de-noninated 10:1. So all pre-1961 prices should be divided by 10 to compare with post-1961. In 1970es, one S-75M3 battery cost around 900000 rub. (cost of just one T-80 tank, btw.), one S-125 battery - around 650000 rub.
You'll be disappointed if you expect something fancy. All indicates that the 'Classified Plane' which the pilot (Lt. Col. Eric Schultz) was flying when he crashed and died was a Su-27. Yes, a Su-27 Flanker! The pilot was apparently flying with a squadron equipped with Russian (and/or other foreign nations) aircraft based on the famous Area 51 and was apparently flying a Su-27 when he crashed. Here: https://theaviationist.com/2017/09/...l-eric-doc-schultz-near-area-51-emerges/
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/04/1710:29 AM
"Russian anti-aircraft missile brigade in Kursk to receive new Buk-M3 systems"
Quote
The personnel of the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade of the combined arms army of the Western Military District stationed in the Kursk region began receiving new Buk-M3 anti-aircraft missile systems. The reception is carried out in the Astrakhan region at the Kapustin Yar test range.
Subsequently, anti-aircraft gunners will have to undergo a three-month retraining in Orenburg on the basis of the training center for military air defence, during which the SAM’s teams will study the tactical and technical capabilities and the material base of the new complex.
In practical exercises, servicemen will develop skills in loading launchers with missiles, methods of working on electronic equipment of anti-aircraft missile systems, and will conduct electronic launches of missiles.
The Buk-M3 medium-range surface-to-air missile system is a modernized version of the Buk-M2 system, features advanced electronic components and a deadly new missile and could be regarded as a completely new system.
The Buk-M3 uses a new 9M317M missile. This missile was first publicly revealed in 2006. It has a totally different design that older Buk missiles. It is more compact than missiles, used on the Buk M1 and Buk M2 systems.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 12/24/1711:36 PM
Quote
Latest Buk-M3 brigade set has departed Kapustin Yar & is now deployed at Marshal Zhukov village,Kursk Obl. w/53rd SAM Brigade (ZRBr) of the 1st Gds Tank Army(ZVO).Note:Buk-M3(9К317М) sex TELAR(SOU) & duodecim TEL(PZU); 9S18M1 acquisition & 9S36 low alt acquis./engagement radars
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/15/1809:41 PM
It looks very similar to a M-11 Shtorm SAM (SA-N-3 Goblet). It's quite an interesting system: I searched for the info on its SNR Grom (Head Lights) ... PVO Guns page says say, it had two monopulse antennas working simultaneously on different frequencies as an ECCM measure... Hpasp wrote that the guidance was actually the Narrow Beam/LORO combo as in Volkhov (and indeed it looks similar). So I am confused which version is correct
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/16/1808:43 AM
Originally Posted by piston79
"... similarly as the Volhov (Narrow Beam/LORO) antennas" - Hpasp
Well, LORO is rather different from monopulse. We could probably figure this out from the picture of the Head Light feed horn (for full monopulse, there must be 4 sections). From vertically and horizontally aligned wire strips, I can only tell two Head Light tracking antennas use different polarization (rotated by 90 degrees). But I cannot decide if this is a pure Volkhov-like LORO system with one antenna working in azimuth, another in elevation, or two dedicated monopulse antennas, working on different frequencies and different polarizations as ECCM feature.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 06/22/1912:29 PM
"U.S. negotiating with Israel to purchase two Iron Dome’s batteries"
Quote
“Right now, we’re thinking ‘Iron Dome’ offers the best solution for an initial capability for IFPC,” Young said. Iron Dome is an air defense system used by Israel effectively in over 1,900 combat engagements, he said. Further testing and experimentation with the Iron Dome System and its components will take place and help inform the Army’s enduring solution for IFPC, he said.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/20/1905:59 PM
""Iron Dome" Technicians"
Quote
Somewhere in southern Israel, there lies an "Iron Dome" battery wherein Command, Control & Launch (CCL) technicians operate alongside the combatants. What is their role during warfare? What is the scope of their capabilities? And what does it feel like when you see a launch with your own two eyes?
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 05/22/2011:12 PM
I have a question for SAM enthusiasts in this forum.
Youtube is full of videos showing the destruction of Pantsir systems in Syria in March and most recently in Lybia. While in some videos the Pantsirs were killed parked near buildings or in transportation, at least couple of them show hits on Pantsir in engagement mode, with a rotating radar or even firing missiles.
Here is one such example:
It has been claimed that these Pantsirs were hunted down by Bayraktar drones. I have a couple of questions:
1) how a relatively large, slow flying drone got so close to the SAM system, that was designed to combat exactly this type of targets, undetected? Are they flying so slow, that the Pantsir radar cannot see it (Doppler filter)?
2) have these Pantsirs been blinded by ECM? I've seen comments on the effectiveness of turkish Koral jamming stations, but I find it unlikely, that they put these kind of stations closer than the radio horizon of the radar. Maybe on the country border, but not so deep inside the enemy territory.
If neither 1) or 2) is correct, then what could be the other possibilities for such repeated defeats? Does Pantsir have a fundamental technical weakness that was exploited? Were these SAM crews totally unfit for the job (lazy, stupid, or both)? Or was there some kind of a very smart tactics deployed by adversaries (like swarming with multiple drones, until the Pantsir shoots all its missiles and auto-cannons and the last drone gets through)?.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 05/23/2003:42 AM
Well, it is hard to say without geolocation and data about "Bayraktar" track (sometimes they appeared in flightradar24).
1. there were some critics about the Pantzyrs before in russian net, and speculation that they cannot "see" slow targets. 2. turks could just loiter over the position in the blind zone of the radar, 3. ECM could definitelly be a factor....!
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 05/25/2007:41 PM
Originally Posted by Jonas85
I have a question for SAM enthusiasts in this forum.
Youtube is full of videos showing the destruction of Pantsir systems in Syria in March and most recently in Lybia. While in some videos the Pantsirs were killed parked near buildings or in transportation, at least couple of them show hits on Pantsir in engagement mode, with a rotating radar or even firing missiles.
Here is one such example:
It has been claimed that these Pantsirs were hunted down by Bayraktar drones. I have a couple of questions:
1) how a relatively large, slow flying drone got so close to the SAM system, that was designed to combat exactly this type of targets, undetected? Are they flying so slow, that the Pantsir radar cannot see it (Doppler filter)?
2) have these Pantsirs been blinded by ECM? I've seen comments on the effectiveness of turkish Koral jamming stations, but I find it unlikely, that they put these kind of stations closer than the radio horizon of the radar. Maybe on the country border, but not so deep inside the enemy territory.
If neither 1) or 2) is correct, then what could be the other possibilities for such repeated defeats? Does Pantsir have a fundamental technical weakness that was exploited? Were these SAM crews totally unfit for the job (lazy, stupid, or both)? Or was there some kind of a very smart tactics deployed by adversaries (like swarming with multiple drones, until the Pantsir shoots all its missiles and auto-cannons and the last drone gets through)?.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/10/2002:41 PM
Looks like we have the first documented kill on Armenian TOR-M2KM by Azeris:
So far, it looked like TORs were more successful against the drones than Pantsirs. AFAIK Azeris claimed kills on TOR earlier, but these were not supported by videos yet.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 11/10/2007:28 PM
Originally Posted by Jonas85
Looks like we have the first documented kill on Armenian TOR-M2KM by Azeris:
So far, it looked like TORs were more successful against the drones than Pantsirs. AFAIK Azeris claimed kills on TOR earlier, but these were not supported by videos yet.
Yep... That's why they bring Tor to Hmeymi base in Syria also....
Note that they waited until Tor stopped working to attack it..
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/12/2202:20 PM
I am posting this here since I do not know what system this it.
Title: The moment of the downing of Russian missiles headed for the Dnipro on September 11.
Translated video description: 'On September 11, around 8:30 p.m., the occupiers launched rocket attacks on the territory of Ukraine. 9 out of 12 missiles of the occupiers were destroyed by anti-aircraft missile units of the "East" and "Center" air commands of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.'
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 09/14/2205:08 PM
Originally Posted by KJakker
I am posting this here since I do not know what system this it.
Title: The moment of the downing of Russian missiles headed for the Dnipro on September 11.
Translated video description: 'On September 11, around 8:30 p.m., the occupiers launched rocket attacks on the territory of Ukraine. 9 out of 12 missiles of the occupiers were destroyed by anti-aircraft missile units of the "East" and "Center" air commands of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.'
You know...I did look at the pinned topics. Maybe with my eyes closed
I've never tried that in the SAMSIM, normally stick with SA-2 as that's the only one i've memorised. When I get more time, i need to learn the others!!
You know...I did look at the pinned topics. Maybe with my eyes closed
I've never tried that in the SAMSIM, normally stick with SA-2 as that's the only one i've memorised. When I get more time, i need to learn the others!!
Exclusive: US finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine The Biden administration is finalizing plans to send the Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine that could be announced as soon as this week, according to two US officials and a senior administration official.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/06/2302:11 AM
According to this article the Ukrainians have figured out a way to launch SeaSparrow missiles from their Buk launchers. I hope they are talking about RIM-162 ESSM.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 01/06/2311:11 PM
Originally Posted by KJakker
According to this article the Ukrainians have figured out a way to launch SeaSparrow missiles from their Buk launchers. I hope they are talking about RIM-162 ESSM.
🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker @UAWeapons #Ukraine: A Russian 55K6A command post of the S-400 AD system was destroyed by the Ukrainian army in #Kherson Oblast - as claimed, using GMLRS.
It is the first recorded loss of this valuable asset and the second loss of the S-400 component - previously a launcher was destroyed.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/16/2304:53 AM
A rare Russian S-300V4 air defense battery was targeted by Ukrainian forces in the South- as a result a 9A83M2 TELAR and 9A84-2 TEL were destroyed by GMLRS strikes, along with 9S32M1 and 9S19M2 radars suffering damage.
Re: News and Videos of not simulated SAM Systems - 08/21/2305:43 PM
Originally Posted by piston79
A rare Russian S-300V4 air defense battery was targeted by Ukrainian forces in the South- as a result a 9A83M2 TELAR and 9A84-2 TEL were destroyed by GMLRS strikes, along with 9S32M1 and 9S19M2 radars suffering damage.