#4109711 - 04/21/15 06:10 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
|
|
|
#4110627 - 04/23/15 02:25 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: farokh]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
and one another thing.. would u discuss aboyt sa-10A for us ? i think this is good subject that you can doing good maneuvering on it !
what are the diffrents between this one and m3volhov ? guidance method ? tracking channel ? I have absolutely no documentation about the S-300. Hungary never got it, and our information source... http://historykpvo.narod2.ru/... has nothing about it.
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/23/15 02:26 PM.
|
|
#4111730 - 04/25/15 06:02 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Agiel7]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
@Hpasp
Something that's kind of confounded us on the Baloogan Campaign Chat is the operational status of the 40N6 missile for the SA-21/S-400. Have you been able to find even mock-up images of the missile? Do you think it would require a 2 tube TEL like the SA-23B/9M92M? I have not seen 40N6, but I believe that it fits to the standard "300P" type missile container. From kinematic point of view, even the Mach7 48N6 (missile of the S-300PMU-1 SA-20A) can fly (ballistic) over 300km. The problem is the fire control radar (still a PESA) maximum target acquisition range, and the endgame target illumination for the SAGG. Don't you mix it with the S-500 system? (Russian THAAD) Great reading from Sean... http://www.mediafire.com/view/8q2q6e9qq8o2c9b/The_S-300_and_S-400_.pdf
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/25/15 06:28 PM.
|
|
#4111737 - 04/25/15 06:12 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 75
Agiel7
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 75
|
The 48N6 series of missiles seemed like a fairly tight fit for the S-300-series tube, so I had a difficult time imagining a missile with purportedly twice the range being squeezed into it (unless they went with the SA-23B solution): Have you heard anything about Russian CEC? Seems like you could run into the same problem with the SA-5/S-200 if a contact simply dived below the radar horizon once it ascertained a launch and having now way to feed mid-course updates with something like a CEC-capable AWACS or JLENS.
Last edited by Agiel7; 04/25/15 06:17 PM.
|
|
#4111740 - 04/25/15 06:20 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Agiel7]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
The 48N6 series of missiles seemed like a fairly tight fit for the S-300-series tube, so I had a difficult time imagining a missile with purportedly twice the range being squeezed into it (unless they went with the SA-23B solution): Have you heard anything about Russian CEC? Seems like you could run into the same problem with the SA-5/S-200 if a contact simply dived below the radar horizon once it ascertained a launch and having now way to feed mid-course updates with something like a CEC-capable AWACS or JLENS. From kinematic point of view, you need exactly the same sized missile, but with different guidance method, or with a more powerful fire control radar. (aka AN/MPQ-53 vs AN/MPQ-65 of the Patriot) Mid-course update is simply not an option for an (aerodynamically controlled) SAM flying ballistic path, of a range in excess of 150km. (no air)
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/25/15 06:30 PM.
|
|
#4111749 - 04/25/15 06:39 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 75
Agiel7
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 75
|
Thanks for the link, Hpasp. Easily the best piece of English literature on the system I've seen. Interesting excerpt regarding CEC: Active radar homing is another feature commonly attributed to the 40N6 missile. With active radar homing, missiles could theoretically launch using off-board targeting data, allowing them to engage targets outside the range of the engagement radar as SAGG guidance commands would not be required. Should keep an eye out for deep upgrade programs for the A-50U fleet a la the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for exactly this purpose.
Last edited by Agiel7; 04/25/15 06:40 PM.
|
|
#4111751 - 04/25/15 06:46 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Agiel7]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Thanks for the link, Hpasp. Easily the best piece of English literature on the system I've seen. Agree, we badly need Russian sources on this topic...
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/25/15 06:48 PM.
|
|
#4111759 - 04/25/15 07:22 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Agiel7]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
I apologise if me saying that seems arrogant. I just find it easier to read technical descriptions in plain English rather than after having plugged in a Russian source into Google Translate. First step on the way of understanding your point of interest (opponent), is the understanding of his language*. (you simply cannot save this investment, if your interest is really serious...) Should keep an eye out for deep upgrade programs for the A-50U fleet a la the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for exactly this purpose. Strongly disagree, as I never heared of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye giving mid-course update commands for any Patriot category missile... ... IMHO a pure un-educated speculation. *My native Hungarian language is from the Finno-Ugric family, having less similarity to Slavic languages, than others...
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/26/15 07:11 AM.
|
|
#4111906 - 04/26/15 03:26 AM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 8
ckfinite
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 8
|
Strongly disagree, as I never heared of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye giving mid-course update commands for any Patriot missiles...
The E-2D is intended to provide targeting information to the SM-6, see here and here. This data is accurate enough to provide targeting information to the launching ship, enabling midcourse updates similar to those employed by SM-2 (via the CEC datalink), just against targets beyond the radar horizon (Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 5e, p. 175). A similar capability for either IADS surface EW elements or for A-50/A-100 would be similarly valuable for 40N6, and probably for 48N6 as well, if an active radar seeker was developed for it.
Last edited by ckfinite; 04/26/15 03:27 AM.
|
|
#4111932 - 04/26/15 06:40 AM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: ckfinite]
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hpasp
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,665
Hungary, Europe
|
Strongly disagree, as I never heared of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye giving mid-course update commands for any Patriot missiles...
The E-2D is intended to provide targeting information to the SM-6, see here and here. This data is accurate enough to provide targeting information to the launching ship, enabling midcourse updates similar to those employed by SM-2 (via the CEC datalink), just against targets beyond the radar horizon (Friedman, The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 5e, p. 175). A similar capability for either IADS surface EW elements or for A-50/A-100 would be similarly valuable for 40N6, and probably for 48N6 as well, if an active radar seeker was developed for it. If you drop the requirement of SAGG endgame guidance, and you are capable of creating an active guidance package (real one, not just marketing), than it is doable... ... just took the US over a decade to develop AMRAAM, and still nobody could reliably replicate it. Using the AMRAAM as an endgame solution, you can even build a complete SAM system without any Fire Control Radar! like NASAMS
Last edited by Hpasp; 04/26/15 06:56 AM.
|
|
#4112029 - 04/26/15 03:28 PM
Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble)
[Re: Hpasp]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 8
ckfinite
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 8
|
If you drop the requirement of SAGG endgame guidance, and you are capable of creating an active guidance package (real one, not just marketing), than it is doable... ... just took the US over a decade to develop AMRAAM, and still nobody could reliably replicate it
Because I'm ignorant of the system, couldn't R-77 be used in much the same way as AMRAAM? The US bolted the AMRAAM's seeker onto SM-2 ER, so why couldn't the Russians attach an R-77 seeker onto 48N6 etc? I have heard that R-77 has only been produced in small numbers, but doesn't it have similar performance to the AMRAAM?
|
|
|
|