Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#4500830 - 12/18/19 04:13 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.
As for the missile, normally, it has a lock on target while on the SPL. When the missile is launched it flies in straight line, while the booster is working, to the projected position of the point of impact calculated by the missile while on SPL. When missile seeker starts semi-active guidance, it corrects the flight path of the missile to the impact point, while scanning in the direction of the target.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4501041 - 12/20/19 12:33 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Is the missile radiofuse independant or it needs the CW transmition

#4501136 - 12/21/19 04:24 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
It needs CW illumination!

#4501158 - 12/21/19 07:55 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Well, would you share some wartime experience?

#4501408 - 12/24/19 02:49 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 635
Alien_MasterMynd Offline
Member
Alien_MasterMynd  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 635
Czech Republic
Kub operator: GREAT!!!! I will read thoroughly and will have some questions for sure :-)

#4503571 - 01/13/20 06:30 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
farokh Offline
farokh
farokh  Offline
farokh
Member

Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 916
I-RAN
Originally Posted by Kub operator
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.
As for the missile, normally, it has a lock on target while on the SPL. When the missile is launched it flies in straight line, while the booster is working, to the projected position of the point of impact calculated by the missile while on SPL. When missile seeker starts semi-active guidance, it corrects the flight path of the missile to the impact point, while scanning in the direction of the target.


You come so late man , he's #%&*$# gone

#4504385 - 01/21/20 01:08 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 48
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 48
Ontario

Originally Posted by Kub operator
No, there is no radio-command guidance.
Target tracking and illumination radar 1S31M has 2 transmitters using the same parabolic antenna as a reflector. First one is for monopulse tracking of the target and guidance of the antenna towards the target, and the second one is for CW illumination of the target. They are based on the same rotation system, and as monopulse target tracking radar automatically tracks the target, it is forming the commands for moving the antenna for further tracking and for illumination. The same as in TV mode, the illumination transmitter is moving as the TOV is tracking the target manually from SURN cabine.
Target tracking monopulse transmitter and CW illumination transmitter work in different frequencies.


May I ask what is the purpose of having such a complicated dual frequency system? ECCM? If you are able to jam the tracker, you will throw away the antenna from the target, so the illumination will be also lost at some point. If you are able to jam the CW illumination channel, well, the antenna is still on target, but you lose the missile.

Seems kind of overcomplicated with no real benefit for ECCM. Just increases the number of ways you are vulnarable to the jammer.

#4505057 - 01/26/20 08:28 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
@jonas85

Well Jonas, I see You do realize that it is the receiving channel that is being jammed and not the transmitting one.
So. monopulse target tracking radar can be jammed, but in daytime you can use TOV (television optical system) as an "equivalent" to monopulse target tracking radar and continue illuminating the target with the CW illuminator.
Also, there is a possibility to manualy track the target with monopulse target tracking radar, if possible, and if jamming is not constant...
If you would have the CW illuminator as a transmitter and a receiver on radar antenna on the ground, you would be blocked from further tracking the target (example: HAWK).
Kub sistem has the opportunity to use TOV or other additional passive tracking devices (IR, for example).
When it comes to CW illuminator, it is a sort of "bistatic radar" in a way that receiver and transmitter are separated. Transmitter is on the SURN, and the receiver is missile SARH system. Of course, we can now discuss about the jamming of the SARH of the missile.
When it comes to missile 3M9 it is proven that it can be jammed more easily in a way that in needs 2,5 - 3 seconds to obtain "new" lock on the target during the flight, while flying the "projected trajectory" to the point of impact. If the missile does not acquire the target "by velocity" in that given time, it is lost.
However, it is proven also that the newer missile 3M9M3 has got much better anti-jamming capabilities, as it can obtain "new" lock on the target during the flight every 0,30 seconds while flying the projected trajectory. Also, it is proven, that it is not enough just to jamm the missile SARH system for a second or a part of a second (as the missile is moving), it is neccessary for jamming signal to "stay a while on the SARH" for the missile to lose the lock. But as I said, it can get "back on track" in 0,30 seconds!
So, it is not easy to jam the SARH system (1SB4M semi-active homing seeker) in the missile.
The other theme is using of the AN/ALE-50 and other active jammers, which do not jamm the missile or target tracking radar so it can not engage the target, but instead it misleads them by receiving and then re-emitting the signal in the same frequency and higher intensity thus "tricking" the missile SARH and leading it to AN/ALE-50 instead to the target.....

Last edited by Kub operator; 01/26/20 08:28 PM.
#4505146 - 01/27/20 02:52 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Yep. I think the AN/ALE-50 is the main reason that SA-6 haven't got a manned plane on this war...
Did you know about some close calls with SA-6, also any other destroyed targets (cruise missiles, projectiles, drones, etc.)

#4505165 - 01/27/20 06:58 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Kub operator Offline
Junior Member
Kub operator  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 23
Well Piston, as you had the chance to read in my topic "Controversies of Air War 24/03/99 - 24/06/99" on MCM forum, I have invested some of my time to find some western sources that could support a certain claim. It is easy to clame a shootdown of a plane, but it is harder to back it up with some evidence of at least some sources that could be "controversial".
Since I have read and learned a lot from Your SAM simulator Tutorials (I do not play simulator) about SAM systems such as 2K11 Krug, 9K33 Osa and other, I feel that it would be only fair to share some info with all of You, that might be interesting.

"B-1B Lancer Units in Combat", Autor: Thomas Withington, Publisher: Osprey Combat Airfcraft, Botley-Oxford.

Quote:
“DESERT FOX AND NOBLE ANVIL

The first B-1B mission occurred on 2 April against the Novi Sud petroleum production facility at Pancevo, northeast of Belgrade. Although ONA was originally limited to only ‘tactical’ targets at the start of the campaign, it became clear that hitting such sites alone would not persuade President Milosevic to fold. Instead, the target set was expanded to cover ‘strategic’ installations such as the Novi Sud facility, which was literally helping to oil the Serbian war machine. The combined load of 168 Mk 82 ‘slicks’ dropped from the two bombers that were sortied had no trouble knocking out the key sections of the plant.
These Mk 82 bombs are lined up on an ammunition-handling truck, waiting to be loaded into the weapons bay of the 77th BS Lancer parked in the background. The access ladder in the crew compartment is down and the aircraft awaits the arrival of the four-man team who will fly the bomber over western Europe and the Adriatic Sea and then onto its targets in Serbia and Kosovo (B-1B Systems Program Office)

However, after the bomb run, the weapons bay doors on one of the B-1Bs failed to close. The Lancer was subsequently targeted by a Serbian SAM, although a combination of defensive manoeuvres, chaff and electronic countermeasures defeated the missile. The weapon succeeded in forcing the bomber into the engagement zone of a second SAM, however, which the crew was also able to defeat. According to the pilot of the aircraft, Capt Gerald Goodfellow, at the first indication of a SAM launch ‘your training kicks in. It feels very natural. You don’t really think about it until later on, when the mission is completed. You take on an almost business-like attitude. You have to beat that missile. When I’m up there, my biggest worry isn’t about getting shot down, but about missing the target. As a whole, the crew is concentrating as one putting those bombs on target’. The open weapons bay doors and the manoeuvring of the aircraft caused Goodfellow’s Lancer to use more fuel than anticipated, leaving the bomber with insufficient fuel to return to Fairford. During the mission, the B-1B was also struck by lightning, which blew off a section of the aircraft’s horizontal stabiliser, but the crew was still able to get the aircraft home. Goodfellow remembered that ‘we felt a huge relief at the completion of the mission. The SAMs came closer than we’d anticipated, and after thinking about it for a couple of days, we were glad to have survived’.
Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen John Jumper was Commander USAFE and Commander Allied Air Forces Central Europe during OAF, and he remembers clearly how well the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy worked on this first mission: "The pair of B-1Bs came down south over the Adriatic Sea information with their ALE-50 towed decoys deployed, and we watched the radars in Montenegro track the bombers as they turned the corner around Macedonia and headed up into Kosovo. We watched the radars, in real time, hand off the targets to the SA-6s, which came upon full-target track and fired their missiles. Those missiles took the ALE-50s off the back end of the B-1s just like they were designed to..."
“Lancer 85-0075 of the 77th BS sits under a partially cloudy Gloucestershire sky whilst being readied for another mission to Serbia. This aircraft left Fairford a mere 11 days after its arrival. The jet’s early departure, in contrast with some of the other aircraft deployed, may have been due to mechanical problems (B-1B Program Office)...END QUOTE

So as You can see, this B1B was engaged by a Kub missile batery that launched 2 missiles. The rest You can read in this quotation from the book. They claim that the aircraft "manouvered and beat the missiles" (bomber manouvered Kub missile?) . But because of that manouvering and because weapons bay door did not close, they used more fuel than expected and needed to be refueled. During this mission they were also "struck by a lightning" (Kub missile?) which blew of a part of the aicraft horizontal stabiliser, but the crew was able to return to Fairford. It happened on the 02/04/99, and the aircraft left the Fairford on 11/04/99 because of the "mechanical problems". The aircraft that replaced him, arrived in Fairford on 08/04/99...

So, this is the first controversy, but certainly a proof that Kub missiles were very close to hitting th B1B, with some chance that perhaps some fragments perhaps hit the aircrafts horizontal stabilizer, even if they flew towards AN/ALE-50...

Maybe some comments and then we can continue? smile

#4505166 - 01/27/20 07:10 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
I think it is more interesting to share stories from SAM crews... We all could read those US stories, but your part of story is unknown...

Did you ever succeed in matching this raid with certain SA-6 activity in the area? (You posted a shootout between SA-6 battery and a HARM carrier recorded by a news cameraman in a live news report during war... wink

Last edited by piston79; 01/27/20 08:02 PM.
#4505816 - 02/01/20 06:02 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Kub operator]  
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 48
Jonas85 Offline
Junior Member
Jonas85  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 48
Ontario
@Kub operator,

thanks for explaining this! Now I understand the ECCM logic in KUB a bit more. That's some really deep technical knowledge I must say!

I was also thinking a bit what you said on the SARH jamming in CW channel. I agree it would be EXTREMELY difficult to spoof a missile. Monopulse itself is notoriously resistant against angles jamming. Crosseye demands a very great precision in controling the jammer beam directivity and phase wavefront with respect of a target to cause disturbances. This means you need an extremely precise and stable jammer platform and a cooperative target, which I don't believe to be possible against a fast moving missile (but I don't really know for sure the todays advancements in the field, so I might be easily be wrong on this). Also, you cannot use cross-polarization jamming either, if you don't know the exact polarization of a missile SARH receiver or if it has polarizer filter to eliminate the effects. So probably the only really usefull technique is velocity-gate pull of or trying to wreak havoc with the fuse. Group targets could also use sinchronized blinking against missile in CW channel.

But in any attempt to actively jam the SARH missile you would of course self-illuminate for the missile Home-On-Jam.

Last edited by Jonas85; 02/01/20 11:17 PM.
#4515355 - 04/08/20 06:28 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
@Kub operator, what kind of ECM you observed during 1999?

#4515774 - 04/11/20 09:26 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
nvm...

Last edited by Vaderini; 04/11/20 09:38 AM.
#4516002 - 04/12/20 03:51 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Vaderini]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Vaderini
nvm...



What's that?

#4516051 - 04/12/20 08:05 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
I asked a question which was literally answered a few pages back, so I deleted the question since it didn't matter anymore and was quite stupid to ask. smile

#4587134 - 12/14/21 09:19 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Hpasp]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Hpasp
Translated from the:
http://legiero.blog.hu/2015/04/01/a_tabornok_nyughelye

During a war there could be strange circumstances, when the fate of a MiG-29 pilot is arrives in a face of a HARM missile.
[Linked Image]

Fate has strange ways for warriors.

General Velickovic during his fighter pilot career, flown F-84 Thunderjet, F-86 Sabre, MiG-21 Fishbed, and MiG-29 Fulcrum serving the Yugoslav Air Force.
According to the Western News of those days of 1999...

NATO struck hard at Serb forces deployed in Kosovo, destroying a significant amount of artillery during Day 70 of Operation Allied Force.
[Linked Image]

NATO aircraft struck at least 32 pieces of artillery, nine armoured personnel carriers, eight mortar positions, six armoured vehicles, four other military vehicles, a SA-6 SAM site and assorted revetted positions. The heaviest strikes against Serb forces in Kosovo took place in the vicinity of Planeja and Mount Pastrik, where severe fighting continues between VJ/MUP forces and the UCK.

Other targets hit included:
Electric power transmission tower near Belgrade
Military barracks at Obrenovac
Air defense command center at Novi Sad
AM radio broadcast stations at: Ruma, and Srbobran
TV/FM relay site at Banjska
Radio relay site at Novi Pazar
Highway bridge at Pirot
Railway bridge at Pirot
Petroleum refueling station at Marash
Petroleum storage site at Sombor
Ammunition storage site at Kursumlija

NATO aircraft flew a total of 575 sorties, including 197 strike sorties and 70 suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) missions. The weather in the operating region was mixed yesterday, leading to the cancellation of some sorties. All NATO aircraft returned safely. Allied Force operations are underway on Day 71. Further details will be available at the NATO morning update at 1030.


During that night actually two Serbian SA-6 battery was taken out of action by NATO, the bloodiest night of the 1999 war from the Serbian Air Defense point of view.

They lost 5 warriors that night...
[Linked Image]

As an inspector officer from the Serbian high command, General Velickovic stayed at the SURN (Straight Flush) fire control radar during the unfolding night battle, and died with its crew.

His mother died just 4 years after, at 78...
[Linked Image]

... still calling his son at the back of her tomb.
[Linked Image]
(my son...)

warriors, rest in peace


"Requiem for Heroes: The Hardest Night in the Air Defense Missile Units of 1999"


The night between 31.05.1999. and 01.06.1999. was particularly hard for members of the Kub-M air defense missile units.
Just before midnight on May 31, 1999., the front of a large strike group of about 50-80 NATO planes, entered Yugoslav airspace from the direction of Hungary and headed for Novi Sad. In the area of Srbobran, there were units of the 240th Air Defence self-propelled missile regiment (srp), armed with the 2K12 Kub-M system. From the superior commands of the Air Defense Corps, the order was issued to the whole Regiment to engage the incoming group in an attempt to at least dissuade them from carrying out the task. In that sense, it was ordered to operate with all self-propelled missile batteries PVO Kub-M with 2 missiles each and with minimal radar radiation. So, it was not imperative to shoot down the planes, but to disrupt their attack and, if possible, distraction. Shortly before midnight, the 240th Air defense self-propelled missile regiment (srp Kub-M) batteries began operations against the strike group. On June 1, 1999. at 00:08, 4th self-propeled battery from 240 regiment (srp) Air Defense Kub-M opened fire on NATO aviation from a position in the village of Nadalj.

[Linked Image]


After launching the missiles, NATO aviation responds by firing HARM anti-radar missiles and tries to bypass the zone of action of the Regiment and move from the region of Backa to the region of central Banat. Almost simultaneously with the launch of the third missile, RstON (radar observation and guidance radar station) was hit by an anti-radar missile. After that, a guided projectile was fired, which directly hit SLO (self-propelled launcher), in which senior sergeant Dragan Bandić, commander of the SLO unit, as well as a reserve soldier Aleksandar Popović were killed as a result of the action. Further more, soldier Ivan Petković was seriously wounded ( a broken arm).

[Linked Image]
Secondary explosions of missiles on the TELAR near Novi Sad/F-16CG with LGB.

[Linked Image]
Remains of the SA-6 TELAR where senior sergeant Dragan Bandić, commander of the TELAR unit, as well as a reserve soldier Aleksandar Popović had their final fight


The NATO attack group then crossed into southern Banat and patrolled the Zrenjanin-Vrsac-Pancevo zone until 2:18 in the morning. At that time, that region: (Omoljica-Bavanište-Vojlovica), was defended by 310th Air defense self-propelled missile regiment (srp) armed with the 2K12 Kub-M system. Before midnight, Colonel General Ljubisa Velickovic, Chief of the Staff of Air Force and Air Defense Corps, accompanied by Colonel Bozidar Pejcic, senior officer in the Air Defense Units Directorate, were on inspection of the Regiment and immediately went to the Omoljica area where 2-nd battery of 310th self-propelled missile regiment was on position. During General Velickovic's visit to the Regiment, the news arrived that the NATO strike group had reached the area of responsibility of the 310th Regiment and that one of the 240th Air Defense Regiment’s missile batteries was hit and that there were casualties. Upon his arrival to the 310th’s 2nd self-propelled battery in the area of the village of Omoljica, General Veličković ordered the commander of the battery, Captain I Class Svetomir Trifunović, to turn on the RStON and carry out action against NATO planes. Captain Trifunović orders RstON to be switched on. In addition to the firing officer- Captain Trifunović and the operators of the target acquisition and target tracking radar, Colonel Božidar Pejčić also entered the crew compartment of the RSTON, while General Ljubiša Veličković remained in front of the radar vehicle to observe the combat work. In the 7th second after switching on the radar transmitter, on the 01.06.1999. at 00:24, RStON was hit by an anti-radar missile HARM. Colonel-General Ljubisa Velickovic, Colonel Bozidar Pejcic and Captain I Class Svetomir Trifunovic were killed on the spot.

In the next hour and a half, the NATO strike group continued to patrol the zone of central and southern Banat at altitudes of about 8,000 meters, and left Yugoslavia's airspace at about 2 am. During their way out, at 02:18 A.M., the NATO strike group attacked for a second time the position of the 4th self-propelled battery of the 240th self-propelled Air Defense regiment in the vicinity of the village of Nadalj with one guided air bomb on the already severely damaged RstON (SA-6 Straight Flush radar).

[Linked Image]

Seconds before AGM-130 impacted the already damaged SA-6 radar vehicle of 4th battery from 240th self-propelled Air Defense regiment in the vicinity of the village of Nadalj

After members of the 4th battery (240th Serbian Air Defense) pulled out two killed comrades and one seriously wounded from the destroyed and burning SLO (self-propelled launcher), as well as fortunately physically uninjured members of the damaged RstON crew, evacuated the remaining SLO out of position and in assembly area and hide themselves in the shelter, a technical team arrived from the Regiment Command and from the rear units in charge of retrieving severely damaged equipment from the position. Then, an attacking group flew over the position again on the way to leave the airspace of the FRY and "just like that" launched a guided air bomb on the marked position of the RstON, which was previously hit by HARM. In this second attack, RstON was completely destroyed.

[Linked Image]

SA-6 radar vehicle remains after AGM-130 strike


During this attack, two officers of this unit, Lieutenant- colonel Stanko Džomić and reserve Captain Jovo Pujić, who were part of the team for retrieving damaged equipment, were seriously wounded.


This was the hardest night in term of losses, not only in the Air Defense Missile Units mentioned above, but also for the entire AIR DEFENCE branch during the entire war, with five dead and five seriously wounded and significant damage to Kub-M surface to air missile units.+

**************


On that 31 May the destiny played it hard with some of us. Obeying the strict military rules valid in the peacetime partially are to blame for what happened that night.
To all of those who served the military and who knows the rigid regulations about the fuel consumption lists that need to be filled from the beginning to the end of each mont, that “end of the cycles” night at Srbobran was additionally complicated because I had to fill the tanks for additional loaders and bring the reserve troops and return the previous troops to the base camp.
All I need is just additional administration besides other issues that I need to finish. I had to cross the Tisa river to get from one place to another. After the shifts were switched, just before midnight I went back to Banat. When we got to the Novi Sad- Zrenjanin road slightly after midnight on our left-hand side, from the direction of Nadalj, we saw flashes from the launched missiles. Soon after that, at the Žabalj brigde where our crews were busy making the smoke screens, people observed few pointed light traces for which the next day, I found out were AGM-88 HARM that NATO airplane launched on our missile battery. After I got to our base camp, I heard from the guard that they saw some combat going on in the area Nadalj/Turia and that they saw and uknown large lightning object which had a curved trajectory and fell between Elemir synthetic rubber plant and the city of Zrenjanin, not far from the gas refinery in the cornfield.
That night I decided to sleep in the base because in the morning I had to be on the road to Pančevo to replace two autoloader handlers. During the night we received an information about the events in Nadalj. Our engineers were busy making the new combat position but, unfortunately, the battery wasn`t able to take them anymore.
At dawn, I was informed that there were also combat in the area of village Omoljica and there are casualties there. Also, the area of village Ivanovo was also under enemy attack but nobody was hurt there.
In the morning two warrant officers from the corps HQ came to us and told us that not far from us one of our SA-6 missiles fell and that we have to go find it and neutralize the warhead.
As some guys from my crew were from the surrounding villages, we were able to quickly locate the missile.
At the exit of Taras village, a group of locals gave me the parts of one HARM missile.
That 1st of June was full of surprises. We found 5-6 HARMS scattered around. NATO launched HARMs both on arrival and during the flight back home.


[Linked Image]
Remains of SA-6 missile and AGM-88HARM, salvaged by ammo disposal team....



In general, field camouflage worked very well during the entire war but there were situations where NATO was able to detect the real battery position and then attack.

Sources:
Dod news briefings 1-4 June 1999
www-mycity--military-com
Zoran Vukosavlevic - "Nebeski stit na zemlje"
user voja64 - www-mycity--military-com

Attached Files SLO.jpgtelar.JPGstrait flush.JPGsituation map.JPG192952_62372848_Voja 050.jpg_RStON.jpg
Last edited by piston79; 12/15/21 02:06 PM.
#4604085 - 07/20/22 11:12 AM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 15
Milten Offline
Junior Member
Milten  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 15
Anyone has or found SURN manual for Kub? I have battery manual for KUB and technical manuals for Volkhow and Neva but not having any luck with Kub. Weak russian does not help either...(But I need this manual mostly for sketches and images.)

#4604459 - 07/25/22 06:32 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: Milten]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by Milten
Anyone has or found SURN manual for Kub? I have battery manual for KUB and technical manuals for Volkhow and Neva but not having any luck with Kub. Weak russian does not help either...(But I need this manual mostly for sketches and images.)


Still in use in my country... Ask Hpasp, maybe would have some drawings

#4638463 - 11/15/23 07:09 PM Re: SA-6 Gainful [Re: wasserfall]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
piston79 Offline
Member
piston79  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,010
[Linked Image]


SA-6 brigade organisation

Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

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


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0