You might wondered why Soviets fielded more than 20 types of SAM systems during the Cold War...
... of course they LOVE missiles, and designed different systems, for 9 different purposes.

Voiska PVO Strany
Air Defense Troops

Air Defense of Moscow

1955, S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild)
1979, S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A Grumble)
1989, S-300PM Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle)
2007, S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler)

Long range SAM systems

xxxx, S-50 Dal (SA-5 Griffon)*
1967, S-200 Angara (SA-5A Gammon)
1969, S-200 Vega (SA-5B Gammon)
1987, S-200 Dubna (SA-5C Gammon)
1989, S-300PM Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle)
2007, S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler)

Medium range (medium altitude) SAM systems

1957, SA-75 Dvina (SA-2A Guideline)
1959, S-75 Desna (SA-2C Guideline)
1960, SA-75M Dvina (SA-2B Guideline)**
1961, S-75M Volhov (SA-2E Guideline)
1983, S-300PS Volhov-M6 (Grumble)

Short range (low altitude) SAM systems

1961, S-125 Neva (SA-3A Goa)
1964, S-125M Neva (SA-3B Goa)
1983, S-300PS Volhov-M6 (Grumble)

Point defense SAM system

20xx, Pantsir (SA-22 Greyhound)

* never fielded
** export version

PVO Suhoputnih Voisk
Air defense of the ground troops

Front/Army level SAM systems

1964, 2K11 KRUG (SA-4A Ganef)
1971, 2K11M KRUG-M (SA-4B Ganef)
1980, 9K37 BUK (SA-11 Gadfly)
1983, S-300V 9K81 (SA-12 Giant/Gladiator)
1998, 9K37M BUK-M (SA-17 Gadfly)
20xx, S-300VM 9K81M (SA-23 Giant/Gladiator)

Division level SAM systems

1967, 2K12 KUB (SA-6A Gainful)
1972, 9K33 OSA, (SA-8 Gecko)
1986, 9K330 TOR (SA-15 Gauntlet)

Regiment level SAM systems

1968, 9K31 Sztrela-1 (SA-9 Gaskin)
1976, 9K35 Sztrela-10 (SA-13 Gopher)
1982, 9K22 Tunguska (SA-19 Grison)

MANPADS

1968, 9K32 Strela-2 (SA-7A Grail)
1970, 9K32M Strela-2M (SA-7B Grail)
1974, 9K34 Strela-3 (SA-14 Gremlin)
1981, 9K310 Igla-1 (SA-16 Gimlet)
1983, 9K38 Igla (SA-18 Grouse)
2004, 9K338 Igla-S (SA-24 Grinch)

Hpasp, I have a difficult time believing that the SA-6 is THAT difficult to operate, having been brutally taught what a "Difficult" SAM is by our friend the Vega. What is the procedure to initiate automatic tracking on the SA-6, which channels ( range, height, elevation, angular velocity, etc... ) make it more difficult than the Vega to operate? From what I've seen online, it seems that operation is like the SA-4, if not a cross between the SA-4 and the SA-5 ( because of the commander's target designation scope ). And by the way, if you are using three people like the system was designed for, the Neva is very intuitive and easy to operate.

Thanks!

P. S.: It mentions "he proposed minor, in-field technical modifications to the SAM system: one to the UNV antenna unit and the UNK-M control cabin responsible for missile control (NATO: Low Blow), with another modification to the P-18 (NATO: Dry Rack or Spoon Rest D) radar that provides target acquisition for each battery".

So, UNV and UNK-M also received upgrades, aside from P-18? I wonder, what would it be? Upgrading transmitter for higher output power? That would be another explanation for "20 second rule", aside from reducing probability of becoming HARM target: higher-power transmitter could overheat if operated for longer period of time... Just my guess, of course...

im not hpasp... as a normal user in sam simulator... i realy hope one day we could touch sa-6 on sam simulator........i can feel create sa-6 for sam simulator is very very harder work for hpasp.
i remember this notice ! hpasp said : KUB is one of the most complex SAM system, I've ever seen.
this mean ...of course i guess! create kub for sam simulator begin one big challenge to the next generation
! ....but im sure one day hpasp creat it

and you not seen the KUB
Just multiply Vega complexity, with the oddity of the Neva displays...
... and the KUB has 3 small displays, all showing different thing.



Main difficulty in operating KUB, is that the guy who designed it, has never designed any SAM system before.
He mainly designed AA missiles, so the logic of the system is far from the SA-2F/E, SA-3, SA-5 that came from the other, but same designer.

PS: there is some Polish KUB manual circling on the web, just try to Google it...

2К12М КУБ-М. Pакетный комплекс 2K12M. Краткое техническое описание.1975.djvu

...just copy this garbage above into google search window.

This is what nobody will ever tell.
Serbia wants to join EU and NATO.
There are still unfriendly countries out there using Neva, that could learn and utilize these tricks against NATO/EU jets.

The 20s thumb rule is rather from the following fact:

During Linebacker-II, the Dvina missile had Mach3 speed, while we were dodging Mach1.5 Shrikes.
During Allide Force, the Mach2 Neva missile faced Macht2 HARM.
While Weasels HTS pod instantly locate the SAM site, you still need to manually lock on target...

Wow, Hpasp, your ability to find such rare docs simply amazes me! Thank you!

P. S. Thanks to you, I was able to find a Russian site full with loads of technical manuals for about anything, including air defence systems (Shilka, IADS and even the S-300V missiles, let alone S-75, S-125, S-200). Maybe this will be useful for you and others:

http://voennizdat.com/art.php

It is interesting to find that some of currently available upgrades for Pechora offer dramatic increase in effective range and ceiling.

The Pechora-2A from Almaz-Antey offers range of 28 km and ceiling of 20: http://www.almaz-antey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/52/273/276/285 (sorry, they ain't got the English version);

The Pechora-2M from Oboronitelnye Sistemy offers range of 32 km and ceiling of 20, although they mention "upgraded booster motor": http://www.defensys.ru/proizvodstvo21.html (also, no English);

And finally, Belorussian Pechora-2TM offers a range of whopping 35 km and ceiling of no less than 25: http://www.tetraedr.com/en/production/production_war/detail.php?ID=9

It looks like the system has a lot of potential, which was unused in Soviet era...

All this "field upgrade" stuff is just a joke for me... In one of it's last interviews Zoltan Dani denied such modification and claims it's just a "marketing move" - a part of information war....

As we know, in Serbia SNR-125 first saw F-117 at the distance of around 18 km (9,7 NM).
According to this graph by Dr. Carlo Kopp...



SNR-125 at this distance can detect a target with RCS of about 0,0025 square meters... This figure well correlates with supposed F-117 RCS, so it may actually be true... Providing that all abovementioned figures are correct, of course.

What is your point?

I wouldn't be looking at graphs by Carlo Kopp ... especially anything that says 'estimated' on it, but then again, even his so called 'not estimated' values often tend to be #%&*$#. It's sometimes hard to separate where he uses real data and when he's trying to sell you something.

Yeah, especially considerIng that Kopp is a big part of the Ausralian defense lobby. Sometimes it seems the only word he can say is "F-22."

I remember the SNR-125 only being able to detect the F-117 at like really low ranges below 10km. Hmmmmm......?

Colonel Dani thinks something different...

With regular radar

Since when? In any case, it shouldn't matter. One should expect upgrades to existing systems.

It would be tough translating this, would have to use optical character recognition and then, the translation still would not be the best... I still don't get why Kub is so difficult to operate... 3 scopes discounting the acqusition scope, and about three as well for the Vega, discounting the acquisition scope as well. ( Including the NCTR scope ). Who knows, maybe that's what it is, maybe you have to lock the target up in terms of signal strength, in addition to azimuth, height, angular velocity ( All of which are probably accomplished by the same button ). And also, what do you mean by 5 different frequency radars? I see only two on the system. Maybe one of them operates in a different frequency?

To be fair, the guy does have his "enemy" in a corner. Here is a recent response by Australia's Defence Ministry (in a submission to Parliament) to Kopp


I read this as: Kopp's conclusion is in general accurate when considering publicly available data. Any nitpicks will not substantially alter the conclusion. We say he is wrong anyway but can offer no proof or even argumentation. You'll just have to be religious and believe us and Lockheed Martin.

Civilian control is dead.

In fields not related to F-22 or F-35, Kopp's proficiency should not be underestimated. Besides, he is the only one who made such an incomprehensive analysis of Russian hardware and made it public and free (Read: Criticizing? Do it better).