R-77 is at best comparable to 120A, and that missile got dumped within a couple of years of production yielding its place to the 120B, and then successive variants of the 120C.

The AMRAAM seeker was not 'bolted onto the SM-2ER'. The SM-6 seeker some form of derivative of the AMRAAM seeker, but it's not like you can take one right off the 120 and stick it onto an SM-6.

@Hpasp: Because PATRIOT uses link-16, in theory you could use an 'off board source' for MCUs, ie. receive position from datalink, then generate the missile MCU transmission. There may be reasons why you want to do something like this, but given that all the long-ranged PATRIOT missiles are SARH/TVM anyway ... what's the point

Yes, I agree, R-77 is inferior to most AMRAAMs. However, R-77 provides evidence that the Russians have the ability to produce operational ARH seekers, and could probably be used as a base for an ARH 48N6, unless there's something more fundamental about R-77 that I'm missing.



I was engaging in some minor hyperbole - you obviously can't swap around seekers like that. SM-6 does demonstrate that the sensor technology is not entirely orthogonal, though, in that an ARH AAM seeker system was developed into a ARC SAM seeker. Is there some difference between the AMRAAM seeker and the R-77 seeker that makes this easier for the former and more difficult for the latter?

The R-77 is their first-gen attempt at miniaturizing an ARH seeker. The R-37 has one (... has it actually entered service though, or is it still cancelled?).

As for the 48N6, part of the reason why they don't use ARH is cost. The PAC-3 and I believe 9M96/E are ARH, and they're specifically used as hit-to-kill (At least PAC-3 is) with the explosive payload used to increase kill probability.

The larger missiles like 48N6 don't need the accuracy of the other two, and instead can be driven more efficiently within a larger error of their targets - the warhead takes care of the rest.

That's my assumption anyway.



Sure, the technology is based heavily on the 120, much like some proposals for certain missile upgrade (R-27EA) were based on R-77. But I don't think anyone's looking at that particular incarnation of the seeker any more.

As for differences? Like I said ... R-77 is at best comparable to AIM-120A, so you could go as far as assuming that that incarnation of the seeker wasn't even reprogrammable - you had to swap out parts to change how it works. It makes more sense to develop something better for today's threats, IMHO.

Since SARH/TVM FCRs and illuminators are still limited by LOS, I think it would behoove an IADS to fully utilise the range advantage they have against targets that are flying below the radar horizon (assuming a ship-board radar for example, a target flying about 500ft above the deck could probably only be detected and engaged <40nm out using the ship's own sensors). For instance with some airborne radar (be it AWACS or some form of aerostat) you could probably station your SAMs closer to your shore and engage sea-skimming cruise missiles further out with ARH SAMs like 40N6 or ERAM SM-6.

Unless you use non-aerodynamic controls, such as small rocket motors, employed on ERINT, 9M96 or Aster missiles...

Russians are still having a lot of problems with their ARH seekers. The RVV-AE (export version of R-77) uses large number of western components, which is acceptable for countries that buy them, but not for Russian Air Force. That's why RuAF never acquired any sizeable amounts of these missiles. Now they're trying to create all-indigenous ARH head for new RVV-SD AAM, but this work is very far from completion.
SAMs are not in any better situation: the 9M96, until recently, was unable to hit anything. 40N6 flew with ARH made in 1994, and they are struggling to build a new one. The OTH capability was conceived for 40N6 from the very beginning - without it, the 400 km range would have been useless. But use of external target designation puts an extra demand on the missile's seeker. For example, Aster missiles require target position updates every second, while such systems as Russian IADS or U. S. Link-16 has a lag of up to 10 seconds. In this case, the missile's seeker should be far more powerful and capable, closer in performance to the fighter aircraft's radar.


Indeed, small 9M96 cost about twice as much as much larger 48N6.

The missile size does not counts here...

Sale prices of Patriot missiles, per piece:

TWM types
80..84 - MIM-104A Standard - 1mUSD
90..94 - MIM-104C PAC-2 - 1mUSD
05..11 - MIM-104C PAC-2 upgrade to MIM-104E GEM+ - 0.45mUSD

Active guidance
02..14 - MIM-104F PAC-3 - 3~4.5mUSD

That's exactly my point. Electronics is about 70-80% of the cost for these missiles.

S-300PS (SA-10B) operation panel

Nice, do you have some description of indicators?

Theoretically 6 person works in the F-2 cabin.
From let to right: firing officer, target acquisition officer, and 3 manual trackers (range, and two angles).
Behind them sits/stands the commander.

I think, that we discussed the indicators earlier at the beginning of this topic...

Thanks, I meant if you have some more detailed description.

The lower indicator of target acquisition officer, what does it display? What is the process of target acquisition? Green/red buttons right to the upper indicator assigns/releases target to the particular channel?
What does the upper indicator display? Something like Vega indicator which shows target, missile and other positions?

Range officer - there are three indicators similar to Vega's D-V indicator. Why three? And what about the upper indicator?

I would concentrate on the two most important workplaces, the Firing Officer (left), and the Target Acquisition Officer (right).

As I never seen original Soviet manuals, take my best guesses with a grain of salt.



On the desk of the Firing Officer (left), you can see a round (white) mapping display of the targets, and missiles tracked by the RPN (Flap Lid). Right beside the (white) round display, you have a wheel to rotate the RPN (Flap Lid) antenna in Azimuth, and above the wheel a mechanical instrument displaying its present direction.

At the lower part of the Firing Officer panel, you can see your 4 firing unit, each having 1 5P85S and two 5P85D launcher.
Each launcher have 4 missiles either 5V55K or 5V55R type. One firing unit can handle/prepare 4 missiles at a time from the available 12 per unit.

At the upper part of the Firing Officer panel, you can see the target/missile matrix.
6 targets (horizontal) shall be paired by two missiles each (vertical) using the green buttons.
Red buttons are for launching, you press the target channel button at the left first, hold it, and press the missile launch red one below the matrix. (similarly to the Vega procedure)

On the desk of the Target Acquisition Officer (right), you can see a round (orange) display of the NVO (Clam Shell), you have a wheel to rotate acquire low incoming targets in Azimuth for the RPN.

The gray smaller screen at the lower part of the Target Acquisition Officer panel is the azimuth/range display of the RPN. You can acquire targets by pressing the green buttons left of the display, than selecting a free of the 6 channels at the upper part of the panel.

The bigger (white) screen beside the 6 target channel selection buttons is the launch indicator ala Vega, just it has 6 lines instead of one.

it seems hpasp read all of c300 manual....
si why he doesnt create it on samsim
that is is the question

Thanks!

And what about range officer? Why three D-V like indicators? Does it have something to do with anti-ARM capability?
Which target does he acquire in range? The selected one by target acquisition officer?

What is the process of target acquisition? TAO selects target according to NVO indicator by rotating RPN using his wheel and then using green buttons left from his lower indicator (why four buttons? some methods for automated target search? RPN must find the target with its beam).
Which RPN beam is used for this target searching? The one which will track the target later after target assignment? In other words RPN beam (which tracks the target) is assigned to one of six channels?

Then I suppose range tracking officer measures target's distance and locks it in range. Then TAO assigns azimuth and range tracked target to on of the six channels. Am I correct?

And anti-ARM:
Does the S-300 incorporate a similar function to Krug's periodic particular beam transmission cease? How would the very narrow beam finds it target again? Or is the beam always on?
And anti-ARM engagement mode, how does it work? Is system able to detect ARM release from the target tracking beam? Is the process fully automated, or the ARM appears as a new target being tracked and operators must assing it and launch the missile?

And the last one, let's imagine RPN is tracking one target. You want to track another one. How RPN movement in this case works?
Because it is electronically scanned array, you have limits (like field of view) where the beam can move in azimuth plane. What is the azimuth field of view?
Is it possible to move RPN mechanically to gain some extra field of view? I mean the case with another target tracked.
For example the tracking beam directs to the middle of field of view. You want to track another target at the right edge of field of view, so is it possible to rotate RPN a bit to the right so the already tracked target will be located in the left part of field of view instead in the middle?
Are there these limits implemented so you would not lose the target in case you rotate the RPN too much (some RPN movement limiter)?

If you read correctly, you would know that he has never seen such a manual....

i said it... because he has great and clear information about c300

Unfortunately, I only know the generic working, but not the details...

What is the process of target acquisition?

The S-300PS has several methods of target acquisition.

1, Target acquisition received from the IADS system.
2, Target acquisition received from the ST-68U (Tin Shield) 3D radar system.
3, Target acquisition of very-low flying targets using the NVO (Clam Shell).
4, Autonomous target acquisition of very-low flying targets using the RPN (Flap Lid).

Does the S-300 incorporate a similar function to Krug's periodic particular beam transmission cease? How would the very narrow beam finds it target again? Or is the beam always on?

Basic idea of any multi channel system is to keep switching on, and try to kill the incoming HARM's.
The S-300PS can automatically acquire & track incoming HARMS.

Because it is electronically scanned array, you have limits (like field of view) where the beam can move in azimuth plane. What is the azimuth field of view?

It has 105 degree of view in azimuth.

Thanks