#3610773 - 07/21/12 01:18 AM
Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
I wonder why Soviet designers did not modified the S-75 with semi-active radar homing by replacing the command guidance antenna with illuminator antenna, or simply by using the SNR's own signal from PODSVET mode? The SARH homing head became available, on Kub and S-200, by around 1967. They could also use the more "user-friendly" missile, without those volatile and toxic fuel components. There were two missiles developed, both with ramjet motor, one is 17D: And another is 22D: However, none of these made it into series production. However, there was a 3M8 missile available, used with the Krug SAM, equipped with a ramjet, with comparable range and launch weight to the S-75's own missiles. They could modify it with SARH homing head from Kub missile (actually done for trials) and use it with modified S-75. These upgrades would dramatically improve its efficiency, and would allow to modify the existing systems. Even the "toxic" V-755 with SARH homing head would greatly increase Volhov's efficiency without sacrificing any of its advantages.
Last edited by Cat; 08/18/12 02:01 AM.
|
|
#3611074 - 07/21/12 04:21 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I wonder why Soviet designers did not modified the S-75 with semi-active radar homing by replacing the command guidance antenna with illuminator antenna, or simply by using the SNR's own signal from PODSVET mode? The SARH homing head became available, on Kub and S-200, by around 1967. There were wars, where command guided SAM's achieve several kills, while SARH guided SAM's achieved only punishment... During OAF Serbian Air Defense OOB looked like: S-125M Neva (SA-3B)alltogether 12 systems250.rbr PVO; 8 system around Belgrade 450.rp PVO; 4 system around Kraljevo 2K12 KUB (SA-6A)alltogether 20 systems60.srp PVO; 4 system around Podgorica 230.srp PVO; 4 system around Nis 240.srp PVO; 4 system around Novi Sad 310.srp PVO; 4 system around Kraguljevac 311.srp PVO; 4 system around Pristina They could also use the more "user-friendly" missile, without those volatile and toxic fuel components. There were two missiles developed, both with ramjet motor, one is 17D:
Right after the end of the Vietnam War (during 1973), the first new V-500 "more user friendly" missile arrived to Shary Sagan for testing, and five years later it was fielded around Moscow, swapping S-25 Berkut (SA-1) systems. There was no point of investing in old systems anymore... ... just remember the fate of the S-75M4 Volhov, or the S-125M2 Neva.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/21/12 04:26 PM.
|
|
#3611092 - 07/21/12 05:06 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
There were wars, where command guided SAM's achieve several kills, while SARH guided SAM's achieved only punishment...
I wonder if this is due to SARH own shortcomings, or due to unsophisticated target tracking radars... In 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it was quite the opposite - semi-active Kub achieved impressive success, while both S-75 and S-125 did not. There was no point of investing in old systems anymore... ... just remember the fate of the S-75M4 Volhov, or the S-125M2 Neva.
Both the S-75M4 and S-125M2 have appeared too late, new-generation systems were already in full-scale development, or even production. But decade earlier, in late 1960es, it could have sense - hundreds of Volhov batteries were in service, and would be for another 10-20 years. I just love the S-75's ability to provide that amazing situational awareness in wide-beam mode...
|
|
#3611114 - 07/21/12 05:50 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I just love the S-75's ability to provide that amazing situational awareness in wide-beam mode... That is just an unnecessary HARM magnet. Soviet designers made completely different conclusions from Linebacker-II raid, and built it into the S-300P (SA-10) SAM. - you need to have multiple parallel target channels. SA-10 has 6! - two missile is enough for a kill. - missiles should reach target faster. SA-10 missile flies Mach6! - you need lots of ready to launch missiles. SA-10 has 48! - you need narrow beams, with small emitted power, to make wandering weasels job impossible. SA-10 use 1 degree pencil beam, instead of the 20degree area sweep of the Dvina. - system should automatically lock on incoming ARM missiles, to be able to engage those. - you need missile radio proxy fuse, to be unaffected by chaff cloud. SA-10 has semi active proxy fuse. - SAGG guidance make noise jamming meaningless. - system should be capable of move or shoot within 5 minutes. *corrected TWM to SAGG
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/22/12 04:04 AM.
|
|
#3611117 - 07/21/12 05:55 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I wonder if this is due to SARH own shortcomings, or due to unsophisticated target tracking radars... In 1973 Arab-Israeli war, it was quite the opposite - semi-active Kub achieved impressive success, while both S-75 and S-125 did not.
During the Arab-Israeli Wars, the targets arrived low, and not jammed the SURN. Israelis were simply afraid to use the VGPO deception mode of the ALQ pod. (if not set correctly, it would simply act as a SAM magnet) During OAF, no planes were supposed to fly below 10kft, and most had the AN/ALE-50 that made the KUB missile completely ineffective, while put its crew in HARM's way.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/21/12 06:07 PM.
|
|
#3611122 - 07/21/12 06:06 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
I just love the S-75's ability to provide that amazing situational awareness in wide-beam mode... That is just an unnecessary HARM magnet. Soviet designers made completely different conclusions from Linebacker-II raid, and built it into the S-300P (SA-10) SAM. - you need to have multiple target channels. SA-10 has 6! - two missile is enough for a kill. - you need lots of ready to launch missiles. SA-10 has 48! - you need narrow beams, with small emitted power, to make wandering weasels job impossible. SA-10 use 1 degree pencil beam, instead of the 20degree area sweep of the Dvina. - system should automatically lock on incoming ARM missiles, to be able to engage those. - you need missile radio proxy fuse, to be unaffected by chaff cloud. SA-10 has semi active proxy fuse. - TWM guidance make noise jamming meaningless. - system should be capable of move or shoot within 5 minutes. So the SA-10 tracks its targets with individual pencil beams. But how the 30N6 receives information on where those targets are so it can acquire them? Exclusively from its 76N6/36D6 radars and IADS? Isn't it has an independent scanning capability? And how can it lock on incoming ARM's if it doesn't constantly scans the scene? Again, from 76N6/36D6? By the way, AFAIK, since the U. S. Patriot lacks a specialized traget acquisition radar, it actually scans the sky with its MPQ-53 to acquire its targets. A sort of hi-tech "ultra wide-beam mode", isn't it? I wish we could get that mysterious S-300 in SAM Simulator at one day... A remarkably interesting system. P. S.: And by the way, will the AN/ALQ-50 be effective against S-300? By masking the aircraft with noise jamming and forcing the missile to engage the towed decoy itself?
Last edited by Lonewolf357; 07/21/12 06:18 PM.
|
|
#3611133 - 07/21/12 06:23 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I wish we could get that mysterious S-300 in SAM Simulator at one day... A remarkably interesting system.
It is quite interesting, that most soviet experience from Linebacker-II is reinvented by SAMSIM users. - do not launch more than 2 missile against a target - we would achieve more, if we would have more missiles - more firing channel would be nice - engaging the incoming Shrike missile Great experience for me! PS: The 9K33 OSA (SA-8) was designed by the lessons learned from the War of Attrition, and the Pantsir-S1 (SA-22) from the lessons of OAF.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/21/12 06:31 PM.
|
|
#3611156 - 07/21/12 06:59 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
So the SA-10 tracks its targets with individual pencil beams.
Most Phase modulated sets does it. But how the 30N6 receives information on where those targets are so it can acquire them? Exclusively from its 76N6/36D6 radars and IADS?
Correct. Isn't it has an independent scanning capability?
It has extremely limited independent scanning capability. And how can it lock on incoming ARM's if it doesn't constantly scans the scene? Again, from 76N6/36D6?
It can lock it up, if launched from a target, already tracked. In theory no other target could sense the RPN emission. By the way, AFAIK, since the U. S. Patriot lacks a specialized traget acquisition radar, it actually scans the sky with its MPQ-53 to acquire its targets. A sort of hi-tech "ultra wide-beam mode", isn't it?
Patriot is more different compared to the S-300, than most would recognize. I wish we could get that mysterious S-300 in SAM Simulator at one day... A remarkably interesting system.
I hope so also, for the future. P. S.: And by the way, will the AN/ALQ-50 be effective against S-300? By masking the aircraft with noise jamming and forcing the missile to engage the towed decoy itself?
Never tried in reality, but "masking the aircraft with noise jamming" is suicidal against any Track Via Missile SAM.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/22/12 01:00 PM.
|
|
#3615446 - 07/28/12 04:21 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
P. S.: And by the way, will the AN/ALQ-50 be effective against S-300? By masking the aircraft with noise jamming and forcing the missile to engage the towed decoy itself?
Never tried in reality, but "masking the aircraft with noise jamming" is suicidal against any Track Via Missile SAM. Thanks for all the info that you share but why is this so? The AN/ALE-50 (BTW, not ALQ-50) signal source is outside the carrying aircraft (afterall it's towed) so if this jammer is used as a tracking point for the missile (like happens with other modern anti-air missiles) wouldn't the missile follow the towed decoy instead the actual aircraft?
|
|
#3615498 - 07/28/12 05:51 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
P. S.: And by the way, will the AN/ALQ-50 be effective against S-300? By masking the aircraft with noise jamming and forcing the missile to engage the towed decoy itself?
Never tried in reality, but "masking the aircraft with noise jamming" is suicidal against any Track Via Missile SAM. Thanks for all the info that you share but why is this so? The AN/ALE-50 (BTW, not ALQ-50) signal source is outside the carrying aircraft (afterall it's towed) so if this jammer is used as a tracking point for the missile (like happens with other modern anti-air missiles) wouldn't the missile follow the towed decoy instead the actual aircraft? Please do not mix the passive towed decoy Raytheon AN/ALE-50 with the active towed deception jammer BAE Systems AN/ALE-55! During OAF, the AN/ALE-50 faced the Serbian SAM threats on-board of B-1B, and F-16C planes.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/28/12 06:00 PM.
|
|
#3615629 - 07/28/12 11:35 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
I don't think the -50 is a passive system, Hpasp, but I could be mistaken - it is linked to the aircraft with a data cable/fiberoptic, depending on version, which suggests that the ECM generator is onboard the plane, and the emitter(s) on the decoy. Please do not mix the passive towed decoy Raytheon AN/ALE-50 with the active towed deception jammer BAE Systems AN/ALE-55!
During OAF, the AN/ALE-50 faced the Serbian SAM threats on-board of B-1B, and F-16C planes.
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3616809 - 07/30/12 08:47 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: GrayGhost]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
I don't think the -50 is a passive system, Hpasp, but I could be mistaken - it is linked to the aircraft with a data cable/fiberoptic, depending on version, which suggests that the ECM generator is onboard the plane, and the emitter(s) on the decoy. Please do not mix the passive towed decoy Raytheon AN/ALE-50 with the active towed deception jammer BAE Systems AN/ALE-55!
During OAF, the AN/ALE-50 faced the Serbian SAM threats on-board of B-1B, and F-16C planes. Yes, I think that GrayGhost is correct! From what I gather the major diference between both systems (AN/ALE-50 and AN/ALE-55) is that the AN/ALE-50 is connected to the aircraft via a "data cable" while the AN/ALE-55 is connected to the aircraft via a fiberoptic cable. According to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALE-50_Towed_Decoy_SystemThe AN/ALE-50 is integrated with onboard active ECM systems such as the ALQ-184. The AN/ALE-55 seems to be an upgraded AN/ALE-50 which is connected to the aircraft via fiberoptics (and with all advantages that this brings). This website (from Jane's) seems to indicate that the AN/ALE-50 has both a passive and active countermeasure system: http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes...ted-States.htmlFinally I do remember that in Jane's F/A-18 which is still IMO one of the most realistic modern combat sims ever made specially regarding avionics that the AN/ALE-50 works as an ACTIVE countermeasure system.
|
|
#3617225 - 07/31/12 12:46 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I don't think the -50 is a passive system, Hpasp, but I could be mistaken - it is linked to the aircraft with a data cable/fiberoptic, depending on version, which suggests that the ECM generator is onboard the plane, and the emitter(s) on the decoy. Please do not mix the passive towed decoy Raytheon AN/ALE-50 with the active towed deception jammer BAE Systems AN/ALE-55!
During OAF, the AN/ALE-50 faced the Serbian SAM threats on-board of B-1B, and F-16C planes. Yes, I think that GrayGhost is correct! From what I gather the major diference between both systems (AN/ALE-50 and AN/ALE-55) is that the AN/ALE-50 is connected to the aircraft via a "data cable" while the AN/ALE-55 is connected to the aircraft via a fiberoptic cable. According to this website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALE-50_Towed_Decoy_SystemThe AN/ALE-50 is integrated with onboard active ECM systems such as the ALQ-184. The AN/ALE-55 seems to be an upgraded AN/ALE-50 which is connected to the aircraft via fiberoptics (and with all advantages that this brings). This website (from Jane's) seems to indicate that the AN/ALE-50 has both a passive and active countermeasure system: http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes...ted-States.htmlFinally I do remember that in Jane's F/A-18 which is still IMO one of the most realistic modern combat sims ever made specially regarding avionics that the AN/ALE-50 works as an ACTIVE countermeasure system. If you excuse me, I used to handle Wikipedia as a source, with a grain of salt... (Just read what Wiki say about the SAM systems, depicted in the sim.) From the AN/ALE-50 (Raytheon) sales material:The ALE-50 towed decoy acts as a preferential target that lures enemy missiles away by providing a much larger radar cross section than the aircraft. The protection it provides to aircraft and aircrews makes the ALE-50 one of the most important end-game electronic countermeasures available today. From the AN/ALE-55 (BAE Systems) sales material:Today’s RF threat is growing, not only in numbers, but also in capability. For mission success across a range of hostile environments, self-protection is essential for all aircraft, from fighters to bombers to transports. Robust RF self-protection is available from BAE Systems’ AN/ALE-55 fiber-optic towed decoy (FOTD). Unlike traditional decoys, such as straight-through repeaters, the fiber-optic towed decoy is coherent and works synergistically with an aircraft’s onboard electronic warfare (EW) equipment to defeat RF threats. It protects aircraft throughout the threat envelope, delivering three layers of defense. 1. Suppression. During the tracking radar’s acquisition phase, the aircraft’s EW system uses the FOTD to emit jamming techniques that suppress the radar’s ability to acquire and track the target. 2. Deception. If the target tracking radar achieves successful target track in spite of suppression techniques, deception is the next layer of response. Once the radar emissions are analyzed, the system determines optimum jamming techniques to break aircraft track. If more than one radar threat is detected, the system can respond with simultaneous transmission of multiple jamming techniques. 3. Seduction is the third layer of protection. If an RF missile is launched, the FOTD can break the missile’s track of the aircraft or lure the missile away from the target aircraft by itself becoming the target.
Last edited by Hpasp; 07/31/12 02:41 PM.
|
|
#3618250 - 08/01/12 06:36 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
Err, I also and usually take the Wikipedia info with a "grain of salt" BUT please note that one of my sources is Jane's.
|
|
#3618260 - 08/01/12 06:48 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Err, I also and usually take the Wikipedia info with a "grain of salt" BUT please note that one of my sources is Jane's. Please note, that Jane's regularly use Mr Carlo Kopp as a source... ... my sources are actual SAM operation & technical manuals, and the Officers who were there and done that...
Last edited by Hpasp; 08/01/12 07:01 PM.
|
|
#3618343 - 08/01/12 08:49 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh
farokh
|
farokh
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
|
Err, I also and usually take the Wikipedia info with a "grain of salt" BUT please note that one of my sources is Jane's. are u serious? im dying again from repeatly laughing im not sure hpasp use (only) jane and carlo kopp sources!!! so i think some guy's need to see this picture again col. dani zoltan is left side at picture but who is right side at picture also holding a piece of the downed F-117A.
Last edited by milang; 08/01/12 08:56 PM.
|
|
#3618382 - 08/01/12 09:36 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: farokh]
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
|
Err, I also and usually take the Wikipedia info with a "grain of salt" BUT please note that one of my sources is Jane's. are u serious? im dying again from repeatly laughing And you must be drunk, right?
|
|
#3618689 - 08/02/12 11:02 AM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: ricnunes]
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh
farokh
|
farokh
Member
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
|
And you must be drunk, right? no im fine....tnQ
Last edited by milang; 08/02/12 11:06 AM.
|
|
#3619992 - 08/04/12 07:46 AM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
Lonewolf357
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 203
|
Hpasp seems to be right on this one, the -50 seems to be some sort of lens or other type of reflector, creating a larger RCS than the aircraft and thus seducing the missile away, or at least moving the reflection centroid behind the aircraft. Thanks! Then why is all that fuss about the system? Towed Luneburg lens is known since 1960es...
Last edited by Lonewolf357; 08/04/12 07:47 AM.
|
|
#3620074 - 08/04/12 01:56 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
|
Could be a matter of mounting on a maneuverable aircraft. Then why is all that fuss about the system? Towed Luneburg lens is known since 1960es...
-- 44th VFW
|
|
#3629228 - 08/19/12 04:46 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: Lonewolf357]
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
|
|
|
#3631382 - 08/23/12 01:10 PM
Re: Why no SARH S-75, I wonder?
[Re: piston79]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Great find! It compares the V-759 (Guideline Mod.5) missile with the 5V55RD (Grumble Mod.2).
|
|
|
|