Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 11 of 13 1 2 9 10 11 12 13
#4321820 - 12/20/16 07:21 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) ***** [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Do not underestimate Kopp, as he has Hungarian ancestors!
Im a Hungarian (developer of SAMSIM), and Zoltan Dani is also an ethnic Hungarian...
Huns has metaphysical affinity towards bows, or their modern variants - SAMs
... we are just crazy people.
biggrin

Last edited by Hpasp; 12/20/16 07:23 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4321861 - 12/20/16 08:50 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 11
Patarames Offline
Junior Member
Patarames  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 11
Europe
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: Patarames
I agree its just a civilized discussion.

@ricnunes

I'm aware of quite some of the history of US stealth technology. You are right that the trade-off of stealth vs aerodynamic ratio is in favor of maneuverability for at least the same stealth characteristics. Point is that geometric stealth (behavior of waves reflecting the surface area) in the XST program was still some kind of black magic, Lockheed did it via computers, Northrop via experience and testing. But by the time of Tacit blue Northrop gained enough knowledge to get almost everything that was physically possible out of geometric stealth, the stealth method that is effective against VHF-band radars.
Even the F-117 should have made the very most of whats possible out of geometric stealth and the later tacit blue even had lower aerodynamic requirements, so that more emphasis on stealth design could be made.
This is why I think the VHF-band stealth performance of the tacit blue was good and still could be called state of the art and the F-117 also not much worse than F-22/35. Some people with wave physics knowledge claim that the B-2 is superior to everything due to its topological feature size which greatly degrades the benefits of VHF-band and its wave reflection behavior.

My 320km range value of F-35 vs Nebo-M is for the case that it performs 20 DBSM worse than in x-band for which it was optimized and in which its RAM and RAS come into the game. The value sounds huge I know but its the result of numbers and a sound looking chart interpretation of Hpasp, its weakpoint is that I proportionally also decreased the F-35 performance by 20 DBSM.



Please don't get me wrong but it seems that you're considering Tacit Blue as a sort of a pinnacle of Stealth aircraft development and technology (please, correct me if I'm wrong) while in fact it isn't. Actually it's very far from it.
In fact Tacit Blue was among the first US Stealth experiments which actually lead to a dead end.
One of the reasons was that as you correctly said, Lockheed developed Stealth aircraft using computer models which resulted in aircraft that were not only more agile and better performing but also and especially more stealthy.

Besides, Tacit Blue design seemed to be intended as a battlefield surveillance aircraft which would fly just behind the front lines (but still over friendly territory) or resuming, basically a similar role as JSTARS which means that Tacit Blue was never meant as an interdiction aircraft which would need to penetrate well inside enemy territory like the F-117 and thus it didn't have the same stealth requirements (like for example to defeat Early Warning and/or VHF radars) like the F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 have.

If there's any need for evidence on this, I can give you just one: The F-22 Raptor.

The F-22 Raptor is not only much more stealthier than Tacit Blue in every possible radar band but it's also extremely agile and much better performing and it looks much more like an actual fighter aircraft instead of some weird stuff taken from a 1950's Sci-Fi movie/TV-show (like Tacit Blue is).

And the F-35 follows this exact same trend as the F-22.

If you want to design a Stealth aircraft, a computer model is the only way to go since a computer model allows the design of stealth aircraft that are both more stealthy and much better performing - With a computer model you can experiment with much more variables while at the same time being exponentially much faster compared with any other kind of experiment like Tacit Blue.
For example, lets look at all US (and only) Stealth aircraft that ever entered in service: F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35. All except one (B-2) were designed by Lockheed with the help of computer models.
The only exception, the B-2 which was designed by Northrop - which was also the designer of Tacit Blue - which used a design that had absolutely nothing to do with Tacit Blue. It used a flying wing design, a design that once again was found to be stealthy rather by accident.
And I'm willing to bet that even the B-2 design had some help by using computer models.

In the end, I believe that Tacit Blue can be considered to be somehow a "failed experiment".


So yes, I'm pretty sure that the F-35 is much more stealthier than the Tacit Blue against VHF radars.
Like Hpasp said, the B-2 was already stealthier in this regard against VHF radars compared to Tacit Blue and the US knows how instrumental was a VHF radar (P-18) in downing the F-117 over Serbia so I'm pretty sure that the US military and Lockheed Martin objectives include making the F-35 stealthy against VHF radars as well.


Therefore I agree with Hpasp, the dBsm gain of the F-35 RCS against VHF radars should be around or next to none/zero (0).


Originally Posted By: Patarames

As for jamming.
A Prowler 800km away brute force noise jamming all frequencies of an old, large sidelobe, non frequency hopping, low bandwidth P-18 radar still could degrade its performance to a level where its reduced by lets say 30%. Do we know that there was no degrading noise interference at the Serbian P-18? For 1999 NATO principles I would expect at least a general jamming even if not dedicated to that P-18.

As for the 0,005m vs 0,16m RCS values. They are based on different assumptions and simplifications, yes but I have shown how these numbers came into being. I would take that 20 DBSM delta value out of the Tacit blue documents with Hpasp scale interpretation as a logic number. The extrapolation of the Serbian F-117 encounter is also useful but just like there are uncertainties with the tacit blue chart scale, I suspect that jamming could have degraded the P-18 performance in that night.

They say engineering without numbers is not engineering. What I try to do here is extrapolating numbers via known facts and logic interpretations. I read Hpasp's post and found his formula for range and RCS, I used this new skill here in my calculations which created that 320km of Nebo-M against 20 DBSM degraded F-35.



There were no Prowlers available to support the downed F-117 over Serbia.
In the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Down-Fighter-Combat-Dramatic/dp/1886391491

Which is from a book on sale about the F-117 shot down over Serbia, you can read the following in the preview:

"For the first and only time during the air campaign, the Stealth fighters were sent into Serbia without EA-6B Prowlers that can jam enemy radars and also collect vital information about their location and operating parameters for pilots who are trying to avoid being shot down by surface-to-air missiles. Other aircraft like F-16CJs that carry high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs), to knock out SAM sites, were also held outside the target area in central Serbia on the fourth night of the air campaign."

and this:

"Colonel Daniel "Doc" Zoerb, the Air Force officer who headed up the "Red Team," the official U.S. Air Force investigation of the shootdown for the Air Combat Command, says the HARM shooters and EA-6B electronic jammers were diverted to counter another threat that developed while the F-117s were en route to the target from Aviano Air Base in Italy."


Finally you can play this same scenario here in SAM Simulator - Hpasp has meticulously research hisorically all current scenarios in SAM Simulator - and you won't find any jammers and/or SEAD flights in there (like happened in real life - see link and description above).


Regarding the EA-6 Prowler jamming range, that's definitely not 800km as you say. I found the following page on F-16.net (an interesting site with lots of very interesting information) where a guy there quoted an article from Aviation Week (Jan. 2010) - which unfortunately I could not find - where it says that the standoff jamming range of the EA-6 Prowler was around 80 (eighty) nautical miles (mi) or resuming around 148Km.
Here's the page:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13493


I don't think the Tacit blue was a failed project. Northrop had a set of empirical design rules after the XST program and possibly already a computer code, they should have had enough knowledge about wave reflection behavior by then to make near maximum use of geometric stealth. Just the a look at the Tacit blues front which more or less directly evolved to the B-2 nose section. A computer assisted design is only really detrimental if you have strict aerodynamic requirements like in a supersonic fighter to get the last bit of margin for better aerodynamics. A Tacit blue had very lose aerodynamic requirements, all wave behavior lessons learned by the Northrop XST team could be put into the Tacit blue to best use. Hence I'm convinced that the stealth performance of the Tacit blue should have been very close of what is physically possible for geometric stealth. This includes its VHF performance as one of the greatest threats it would face beside P-18s would have been high power P-14s of S-200s. These are the reasons why I'm quite convinced that those RCS band reductions shown in the declassified Tacit blue documents also apply to today's state of the art stealth systems with exception of the B-2 for reasons described in my last post.

As for F-35 anti-VHF band performance. The Tacit blue was designed with a certain set of design rules which result into a controlled wave reflection. As its aerodynamic requirements are loose, all efforts could be made to maximize th performance of controlled wave reflection (F-35 as supersonic fighter would be a magnitude harder task to design for equal stealth performance, a task likely only possible with computers). I'm convinced that by the time of tacit blue, Northrop was able to make use of something like 90% of what's physically possible for geometric stealth. The margin left for improvement for F-35 would be very small and hence I don't think a F-35 could physically have a notable improvement of geometric stealth performance against VHF-band radars. RAM and RAS are a completely different story but these are only effective in wavelength of their depth/size which is mm X-band up to at best cm S-band. Therefore I exclude any effect of RAM/RAS of Tacit blue and F-35 on their VHF-band performance.


Regarding jamming against Serbian P-18 or not: I said 800km away to emphasize that a omni-directional far away noise jammer, dedicated to another threat system would still have a degrading effect on the P-18 which as analogue legacy system would be extremely prone to even simple jamming techniques.
Look a negative Russians judge the P-18 performance against a 500km away jammer: http://www.kbradar.by/en/products/radiol...ooruzheniya/99/

So even if Prowlers would be taken to another task as described; indirect jamming from far away by a omni directional jammer could degrade P-18 performance significantly.

#4321893 - 12/20/16 10:31 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
@Patarames,

Look, I don't want to be rude but your post if full of speculations driven by a strange or weird desire to prove that the F-35 or all other Stealth Aircraft with the exception of the B-2 can for some odd reason be detected by VHF radar at huge distances of more than 300 kilometers while in fact it was proven to you that this isn't the case.

Basically what you're trying to say is:
1- Stealth is static and cannot for some weird reason ever evolve due to some laws of physics.
2- VHF radars as opposed to Stealth can always massively evolve and here the laws of physics don't matter anymore.
3- Electronic Warfare also as opposed to Stealth can always massively evolve and here the laws of physics don't matter anymore.

You also constantly say that Tacit Blue was the pinnacle of Stealth Technology albeit it was one of the first Stealth projects which ended up being cancelled! And as such it was a "failed project", sorry there's no other way around it.
If Tacit Blue was "so good" or the best that could ever be achieved with Stealth why on Earth was it cancelled??
You also ignore the fact that Tacit Blue was designed as a battlefield surveillance aircraft like JSTARS currently is and as such it was never meant to fly over enemy territory and as such it was never designed to face enemy Early Warning and/or VHF radars. Here, read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Tacit_Blue

And again you exclude the possibility of any evolution in Stealth technology in a period of more than 20 years but yet all other technologies (radar and Electronic Warfare) can evolve!

Also your claims aren't backed up with any real evidence/links from your part. Again they seem to be a personal desire from your part - excuse me if I'm mistaken here!


At the same time you contradict yourself big time here:

Quote:

Just the a look at the Tacit blues front which more or less directly evolved to the B-2 nose section


and here:

Quote:

These are the reasons why I'm quite convinced that those RCS band reductions shown in the declassified Tacit blue documents also apply to today's state of the art stealth systems with exception of the B-2 for reasons described in my last post.


First you seem to imply that the B-2 was somehow based on Tacit Blue and then right away you claim that all Stealth aircraft with the exception of the B-2 share Tacit Blue's limitation against VHF radar?? Can't you even see the contradiction here?

Moreover, you claim that the B-2 is the stealthiest aircraft around but again you ignore real facts and official information - The F-22 is much more stealthier in every possible way compared to the B-2! The F-35 is also stealthier than the B-2 in the frontal aspect! Yet, you keep ignoring this.

So no, the B-2 isn't the stealthier aircraft around. Yet, you claim that a design which was found to be stealth "by accident" is better than designs which were purposely designed to be stealth and are technologically more advanced.


Then you have the F-117 detection data that completely contradicts your claims - The F-117 RCS in terms of dBsm hardly has any gain against VHF radar but yet you seem so eager to prove otherwise and as such that this was due to jamming which is a claim that even goes against official USAF/NATO reports that clearly state without any margin of a doubt that absolutely no EA-6 Prowlers jammers had any effect (or gave any kind of protection) during the events that lead to the F-117 shot down.

You even seem to go against the creator of this game (Hpasp) which spend so many time researching about this situation and thus modeling it in SAM Simulator.

Resuming, I gave you information sources (links) that clearly stated that no EA-6 jammer affected the P-18 radar that first detected the F-117 but yet you decide to continue in a sort of "conspiracy" theory that a EA-6 may have been present on the other side of Serbia with its jammer turned on in the Omnidirectional mode and by "accident" it somehow affected this same P-18. And still you claim this without any sort of evidence!

Are you even implying that a single EA-6 flying over Serbia can affect the entire Serb force radar grid??
Jezz, in your opinion Stealth cannot evolve but Electronic Warfare can evolve to the point where a single jammer can affect an entire radar grid of a country. What's the logic of that??


Again I don't mean to be rude but I find puzzling that you constantly ignore facts (with backed up evidence and sources) already posted before in order to keep up posting your own claims/believes. But please, feel free to continue... rolleyes

#4321897 - 12/20/16 10:35 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Do not underestimate Kopp, as he has Hungarian ancestors!
Im a Hungarian (developer of SAMSIM), and Zoltan Dani is also an ethnic Hungarian...
Huns has metaphysical affinity towards bows, or their modern variants - SAMs
... we are just crazy people.
biggrin


LoL, I don't underestimate you and neither Zoltan Dani that's for sure but about Carlo Kopp, I beg to differ.

Afterall all men were born different, even in Hungary I believe biggrin biggrin biggrin

#4322135 - 12/21/16 05:32 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3
Nikoteer Offline
Junior Member
Nikoteer  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3
I am looking for info on the S-300 missile, and you guys seem to be the experts.

Does anyone know (or can estimate) one or more of these:

Total fuel weight?
Pounds of thrust?
Duration of thrust?
If an aircraft approach it at very low altitude, does the missile fly directly towards it or does it snap up first, and dives down on it, to avoid obstacles and such?

..And does anyone have similar data for the BUK-M2?

#4322213 - 12/21/16 10:17 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Nikoteer]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Originally Posted By: Nikoteer
I am looking for info on the S-300 missile, and you guys seem to be the experts.

Does anyone know (or can estimate) one or more of these:

Total fuel weight?
Pounds of thrust?
Duration of thrust?
If an aircraft approach it at very low altitude, does the missile fly directly towards it or does it snap up first, and dives down on it, to avoid obstacles and such?


S-300 is rather a family of SAM systems...

missile type - launch weight - burnout speed - burnout time - maximum range

S-300PT/PS/PMU (SA-10 Grumble)
5V55K - 1480kg - 2000m/s - 8~10s - 47km
5V55R - 1660kg - 2000m/s - 8~10s - 75km

S-300PM/PMU-1 (SA-20A Gargoyle)
48N6/48N6E - 1800kg - 2100m/s - 10~12s - 150km

S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle)
48N6D/48N6E2 - 1835kg - 2100m/s - 10~12s - 200km

S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler)
48N6DM/48N6E3 - ??? - ??? - ??? - 250km
40N6/40N6E - 1893kg - ??? - ??? - 380km

These missiles always fly a lofted ballistic path, you can imagine them as end-phase guided ballistic missiles, falling onto their targets from above.

Check this video...


Last edited by Hpasp; 12/21/16 10:48 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4322432 - 12/22/16 04:50 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3
Nikoteer Offline
Junior Member
Nikoteer  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3
Alright, thank you. smile

#4323418 - 12/26/16 01:34 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
Muggs Offline
Member
Muggs  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
UK
"Time to test new S-300PMU-2s. #IRIADF (Air Defense) joint exercise with #IRIAF started in South of #Iran. F-4Es will play role of aggressors"

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/813301766326521857

#4323930 - 12/28/16 11:19 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 914
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 914
I-RAN
Thats too sad for me
Ive to access to our c300 at all frown

#4324073 - 12/28/16 08:57 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
S-300PMU/PMU1/PMU2/V/VM, S-400 marketing materials...
http://www.mediafire.com/file/jyu6brq7ha4o23w/S-300_Marketing_Material.rar

Happy Holidays,
thumbsup


Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4325088 - 01/01/17 12:47 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
Iranian S-300PMU2




Last edited by Hpasp; 01/01/17 05:44 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4326389 - 01/06/17 11:23 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
I start here a 4 part mini series (translated from Hungarian, so sorry in advance for the bad translation...) about the S-300 history, adding some might not so well known numbers, to help clarifying the big picture...

S-300 history-I . Quantity or quality?

The analogue era of anti-aircraft missiles peaked at the late seventies, when over 1100 SAM batteries defended the territory of the Soviet Union.

56 fixed C-25 Berkut (SA-1) defended Moscow in a double ring.
The 20 target channel system used command guided missile with 46km range, but were unable to engage targets flying below 500m.



The outer ring was 85~90km, the internal 45~50km from the Kremlin.

The First Air Defense Army consisted of four corps.
1st Air Defense Corps, Vidnoe (purple) defended Moscow from the south-east, with nine outer and five interior regiments
6th Air Defense Corps, Balashikha (light blue) defended Moscow from the north-west defended Moscow, eight outer and six interior regiments
10th Air Defense Corps, Dolgoprudnyi (green) defended Moscow from the north-east defended Moscow, nine outer and five interior regimentss
17th Air Defense Corps, Odnitsovo (dark blue) defended Moscow from the south-west, eight outer and six interior regiments

More than 750 S-75M Volkhov (SA-2) single channel systems were fielded, using command guided missiles with 56km range, and an effective minimum target altitude of 100m.



They protected Leningrad with ~30 systems forming a single ring around the city, plus other medium cities with smaller numbers.
Created the world's longest (8500km), continuous air defense missile belt, that started from Leningrad, down along the Baltic Sea coast, along the Polish, Czechoslovakian, Hungarian, Romanian border, through the north coast of the Black Sea, through the Caucasus...



... and along the borders of Iran, Afghanistan and China, all the way till Mongolia.


~180 S-125 Neva (SA-3) low altitude, single-channel system complemented the firing zones of the S-75s.
Single channel system, using command guided missiles with only 25km range, but with an effective minimum target altitude of 20m.

~130 S-200 Vega (SA-5) long range, typically 2~3 or 5 channel systems were fielded.
They used 255km-range semi-active guided missiles reaching their target over Mach6.
Defended the European airspace part of the Soviet Union (west of the Urals), with mostly overlapping firing zones.
8 pieces formed a ring around Moscow with 100 km radius, plus 8 more created a 800km long north and east defense barrier from 400km of the capital.



So for the Asian part, only the major settlements were defended by sole systems.

Replacing these analogue systems by the multi channel digital S-300 was a Herculean task, limited by the new system 4~5x price tag, and the abrupt end of the Cold War.


Last edited by Hpasp; 01/06/17 05:42 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4326406 - 01/06/17 01:10 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
S-300 history-II. Toothless lion?

Produced between 1978 and 1983, over 55 pieces of towed S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A) systems replaced the S-25 regiments around Moscow 1:1.
The command guided 5V55K missiles had an effective range of 47km, but could engage targets flying as low as 25m.



During the second half of the eighties they were modernized to the S-300PT-1A level, thus could launch the longer-ranged (75km) 5V55R missiles.

Production of the mobile S-300PS Volkhov-M6 (SA-10B) system between 1983 and 1990 yielded ~70 systems.
20 replaced the earlier S-75 ring of Leningrad, and the rest was sent to protect less important settlements around the country (usually 2 systems per location).



The last six copies of the series were produced as the S-300PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) export variant.
During 1989, Bulgaria and East Germany received a copy each, followed by Czechoslovakia in 1990.
As the political regime changed in east Europe, the already produced 2 Hungarian, and 1 Polish systems were not delivered, and due to the reunification of Germany, the already delivered system was also returned to the Soviet Union due to political agreement.
At the end, China bought all 4 remaining export versions in 1994, for $220 million.

The 6 channel system had an effective range of 75km using the 5V55R missiles, and could engage targets flying as low as 25m.
Missile had a single-stage solid-propellant booster, accelerating it over Mach7 within 8~10 seconds after launch.
In mid flight, the missile was coasted on a ballistic path.
During end-game, the fire control radar (RPN) and the missile semi active guidance head measured the target direction simultaneously, and by triangulating its position, the RPN calculated the expected impact point, and sent guidance commands back to the missile, capable of pulling over 20g's.



The events of Soviet Union transforming to Russia caused the next version, S-300PM Volkhov-M6M (SA-20A) acceptance to be delayed till 1993.
Production lasted just between 1993 and 1996, with only ~35 pieces delivered.
20 systems replaced the older S-300PT versions at the inner ring around Moscow, while on the outer ring of the firing positions were disbanded and residential complexes were built on its places.
The remaining few S-300PM systems, and the replaced 56 S-300PTs, taken over the air defense of the more important settlements of Russia, by finally replacing ageing S-75/125 systems, which were completely withdrawn from service during 1996.
The 6 channel system 48N6 missile had a range of 150km, and could engage targets flying as low as 10m.

The last 8 pieces of the production run were S-300PMU1 Volkhov-M6M (SA-20A) export versions.
4 pieces were sent to China in exchange of $462 million of (exSoviet) debt write off, while Greece and Vietnam bought 2-2 pieces each for $230 million.



The 400km-ranged missile version planned for replacement of the S-200 and was developed since 1985, got disrupted by the 1998 Russian financial crisis that halted any further S-300 production for 10 years.

All S-200 systems were withdrawn from service without any replacement.

Last edited by Hpasp; 01/06/17 05:40 PM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4326594 - 01/07/17 12:12 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
Muggs Offline
Member
Muggs  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
UK
Very interesting!

#4326702 - 01/07/17 07:36 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
I am quite shocked with the low amount of systems produced.

#4326862 - 01/08/17 01:51 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Very interesting info Hpasp and again thanks for sharing! thumbsup

#4326905 - 01/08/17 04:56 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Alien_MasterMynd]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,813
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,813
Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
I am quite shocked with the low amount of systems produced.


Yes, which is better - to have 6 "Volkchov"-s or one S-300PT? Lossing one guiding channel per system or six at once?

neaner

#4326944 - 01/08/17 06:34 PM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Alien_MasterMynd]  
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp Offline
Hpasp  Offline

Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
I am quite shocked with the low amount of systems produced.

Why are you shocked? Even the WarPact countries (close to NATO) had similar proportions.
Czechoslovakia had 20 Volhov + 18 Neva + 5 Vega and only 1 Sz-300PMU!
Bulgaria had 10 Volhov + 10 Neva + 2 Vega and only 1 Sz-300PMU!

And even you were the lucky ones.

Last edited by Hpasp; 01/09/17 08:41 AM.

Hpasp
Free SAM Simulator, "Realistic to the Switch"

(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.)
http://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Book from the author - Soviet Nuclear Weapons in Hungary 1961-1991
https://sites.google.com/view/nuclear-weapons-in-hungary/

thumbsup
#4327117 - 01/09/17 10:47 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
Yes, I know our numbers (there was plan to exchange S-75 with S-300, but it was canceled due to political changes and complete PVO devastation followed as we all know), but I meant my comment to Russia numbers, I somehow expected larger numbers. Especially with ending life of older systems.

#4327511 - 01/10/17 08:05 AM Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 614
Czech Republic
By the way, I was talking just about S-300 numbers.

Page 11 of 13 1 2 9 10 11 12 13

Moderated by  Cat, Hpasp, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Just a little feel good flying thing
by Nixer. 02/18/20 12:37 AM
Now, This is Cool (Even if it WAS a Dog)
by vonBaur. 02/18/20 12:37 AM
HITMAN 2, et al
by DBond. 02/17/20 01:52 PM
I didn't know this. Women Top Guns.
by NoFlyBoy. 02/17/20 03:46 AM
Betelgeuse
by Red2112. 02/16/20 11:35 PM
Heck just a good jam
by rwatson. 02/16/20 01:57 PM
EPIC Games = epic PITA
by Dunolde. 02/15/20 09:05 PM
WWII Nose Art
by F4UDash4. 02/15/20 01:25 AM
weird ads i only see at Simhq
by Ajay. 02/15/20 12:53 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0