homepage

S-300, S-350, S-400

Posted By: Hpasp

S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/24/14 02:09 PM

I open this topic for my all time favourite SAM system.
The S-300PS Volhov-M6 (export version S-300PMU) [SA-10B Grumble] is the ultimate Soviet SAM system of the '80s.


After synthesizing all the lessons learned during the conflicts of the '60~'70s, Soviet union developed the first 'double digit' SAM, answering all the challenges depicted in the SAM SIMULATOR situations...

- completely mobile system, capable of shooting 5 minutes after stop
- can engage 6 targets parallelly, with 12 missiles (doing Mach6!!!)
- 48 ready to launch missiles, no missile reload time
- 75km range (with V-500R 5V55R)
- hard (almost impossible) to jam V-500R 5V55R (Grumble Mod.1) missiles
- hard to find RPN (fire control radar), only the targeted plane can detect the digitally controlled, narrow pencil-beam
- automatical HARM detection, and acquisition
- detecting ultra low flying targets
- easy to use digital interface


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 02:13 PM


The S-300P (‘P’ as PVO – Homeland Air Defense) is the first multichannel SAM system developed by Almaz TsKB under the leadership of B. V. Bunkin.

It was the first Soviet SAM system that used phased array fire control radar, and missile seeker aided ground guidance, capable of firing only 5 minutes after stopping.

The first towed version S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A Grumble) was fielded in 1979, replacing the S-25 Berkut (SA-1 Guild) batteries around Moscow.



The first mobile version S-300PS Volhov-M6 (SA-10B Grumble) was fielded in 1983 replacing the S-75M Volhov (SA-2E Guideline) and S-125M Neva (SA-3B Goa) batteries, and exported outside of the former Soviet Union from 1988 as the S-300PMU (SA-10B Grumble) into Bulgaria, China, and Czechoslovakia.





Second generation of the S-300P is fielded from 1989, as the S-300PM Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle), and exported in two versions. The S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) is shipped from 1994, into China, Greece, and Vietnam. The S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) is shipped from 2004 into China.




Third generation of the S-300P is fielded in Russia from 2007 replacing the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) batteries, as the S-400 Triumph (SA-21 Growler).

Hungary planned to field two S-300PMU batteries during the 1990’s, but the Cold War ended.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 02:43 PM



At the left sits the Firing Officer, before a matrix of 6 targets (horizontal) and 4 group of launchers (4x4 vertical) indicators.
He pairs the missile to the target, then launch it.

At the center, sits the Target Acquisition Officer.
He acquires the target on the lower (smaller) rectangular screen, then assigns it to one of the 6 target channels (above larger screen).

Right of the picture sits the Range Officer.
He can acquire, and manually track one target in range.

There are two workstations right of him, with two Angle Officers.
They can acquire, and manually track one target in angle.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:10 PM

Best book so far...

Der Fla-Raketenkomplex S-300PMU in der NVA



Also...

http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_01.pdf
http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/S_trista_02.pdf
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:10 PM

Do you have also pictures of panels of those angle officers?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:17 PM

here

Posted By: apelles

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:22 PM

The Sa-10b system have capabilitys against tactical ballistic missiles like Frog-7 or scud?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:32 PM

Originally Posted By: apelles
The Sa-10b system have capabilitys against tactical ballistic missiles like Frog-7 or scud?


The S-300PS/PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) can hit the SCUD in theory, as good as the Patriot was able during the first Gulf War...
(any target with the speed of 1200m/s)

... but the S-300PM/PMU1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) is designed from scratch to be able to kill it.
(any target with the speed of 2800m/s)

ATBM Capability
Testing of new capabilities for the S-300P and S-300PM continued even after the S-300PM entered service. The most significant testing occurred in the aftermath of Operation DESERT STORM.
Almaz and Fakel engineers had examined the performance of the American PATRIOT missile system during SCUD missile intercepts and found that the PATRIOT was not nearly as effective as was needed to defend a large populated area. Accuracy was not the issue; PATRIOT missiles consistently found their targets. The problem was one of target destruction.
When the PATRIOT missile warheads detonated, they often simply knocked the SCUD off its flight path without destroying the inbound warhead. When defending an isolated facility, this would be sufficient. However, intercepts attempted by Israeli PATRIOT batteries were of particular interest to the Russian engineers. Often times the inbound warheads still landed in populated areas. To be truly effective in an ATBM capacity, a SAM system would have to destroy the warhead in-flight.
Testing of various S-300P variants at both Sary Shagan and Kapustin Yar proved that the system did have the ability to intercept tactical ballistic missiles at various ranges, depending on the missile system employed and the speed of the incoming target. Fakel MKB engineers, however, developed an even more effective solution in the aftermath of DESERT STORM: a special warhead designed to cause the inbound warhead to detonate in-flight.
The first test firing of the modified warhead occurred in August of 1995 at Kapustin Yar. The missile's warhead successfully caused the warhead of the 8K14 target to detonate in the atmosphere. The missile employed a directional warhead, which is roughly analogous to a shaped charge system insofar as it is able to direct the bulk of the explosive force of the warhead towards the target.
Posted By: apelles

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 03:37 PM

And against it the NATO could use the medium altitude attacks like in Serbia or would have to return to their low attack tactics? (Tornado, F-111)
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 04:21 PM

Originally Posted By: apelles
And against it the NATO could use the medium altitude attacks like in Serbia or would have to return to their low attack tactics? (Tornado, F-111)


Serbia planned to field 3 battery S-300PMU1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) in 1999, but the shipment was blocked on the Hungarian border.

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/24/14 06:12 PM

Does SA-10 target tracking radar is a CW radar? How it works with 0 degrees radial speed targets?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/25/14 06:53 AM

I'd like to know this too. I thought the SA-10 would be a monopulse radar, but I don't understand how you can manually track a target using a monopulse radar.

I'm confused.
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/25/14 09:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
I'd like to know this too. I thought the SA-10 would be a monopulse radar, but I don't understand how you can manually track a target using a monopulse radar.

I'm confused.


You can manually follow target returns with tracking gates velocity or range (CW or Monopulse) while follow manually in azimuth watching PPI screen or
with the use of a camera (day/night).
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/25/14 09:51 AM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Does SA-10 target tracking radar is a CW radar? How it works with 0 degrees radial speed targets?


But the missile on air is NOT in zero Doppler position !!! It gets reruns from target illumination.
The main issue is to some how illuminate the target...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/25/14 06:19 PM

Good open source info...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/t4bfjzc6ayfnl8x/The_S-300_and_S-400.pdf
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/25/14 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Does SA-10 target tracking radar is a CW radar? How it works with 0 degrees radial speed targets?


According to the monograph linked above (page 13), the RPN can track targets with radial speed between 50~1200m/s.

So anything flying under 180km/h, cannot be tracked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
banghead
Posted By: jazjar

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/26/14 12:38 AM

So technically, only the firing and target acquisition officers are needed for normal operation? How does the firing officer "pair" targets? is it just pressing and holding down on the channel button, and then pressing the fire button to fire, or is it something else?
Posted By: apelles

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/26/14 08:41 AM

This also meant if the target beaming the SA-10B lose tracking, and missiles go ballistic???
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/26/14 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: apelles
This also meant if the target beaming the SA-10B lose tracking, and missiles go ballistic???


There is no official material available, and open source ones are contradicting...
... so handle it with grain of salt.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/26/14 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: jazjar
So technically, only the firing and target acquisition officers are needed for normal operation? How does the firing officer "pair" targets? is it just pressing and holding down on the channel button, and then pressing the fire button to fire, or is it something else?




3 launcher groups are available, with 3 launchers each (total 36 missiles).
At the 2nd top row, you can see 12 selectable missiles.


The Firing Officer assigns 2 missiles from the 12, against the 6th target.
Now you have only 10 selectable at the 2nd top row, and 2 assigned against target 6.


Missile launched.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/26/14 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
I'd like to know this too. I thought the SA-10 would be a monopulse radar, but I don't understand how you can manually track a target using a monopulse radar.

I'm confused.


It has a phase modulated monopulse radar, with 3 antenna groups.
(FA-110, FA-130, FA-140)


While the analogue, single target tracking monopulse sets are precisely keeping the target in the center of the pencil beam, the digitally aimed pencil beam is following in steps rather than continuously tracking.
Here the monopulse method is used to decide, where the target is located from the center of the beam.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/28/14 02:51 PM

S-400 Serial production
http://englishrussia.com/2014/01/27/modern-russian-technology-park/
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/30/14 01:38 PM

Failed launch....

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 01:09 PM



Vietnam is missing...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 05:34 PM

Five S-300PS battery anyone for free?

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140131/...-of-Charge.html
biggrin
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


I guess that means S-300 PS is not really effective at those days...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
I guess that means S-300 PS is not really effective at those days...


I cannot see ANY situation, where I would like to sit inside of an (S-25M, S-60, SA-75M, S-75M, S-125M, S-200V, ZSU-23M, 2K11M, 2K12M, 9K31, 9K33, 9K35, MIM-14, MIM-23)* instead of the F-2 cabin of the S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) system.

All the collected experiences of the battles between 1960~'80 were incorporated into THIS SYSTEM.
(everything you could ever wish for, playing SAMSIM situations)

Even the US Wild Weasels called them as the "Double Digit SAMs", to differentiate it, as a completely other league.

*except MIM-104 biggrin
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 09:22 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
I guess that means S-300 PS is not really effective at those days...


One comment from the Hungarian forum...
...it is somehow better to kill Chinese fighters over Kazakhstan inbound of Russia.

biggrin biggrin biggrin

Completely agree.
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/02/14 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
All the collected experiences of the battles between 1960~'80 were incorporated into THIS SYSTEM.
(everything you could ever wish for, playing SAMSIM situations)


I want to find out!!!! biggrin
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/03/14 11:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

I cannot see ANY situation,....


SA-2E giving target acquisition data for SA-10 against slow drone against a wind.....

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

All the collected experiences of the battles between 1960~'80 were incorporated into THIS SYSTEM.
(everything you could ever wish for, playing SAMSIM situations)

Even the US Wild Weasels called them as the "Double Digit SAMs", to differentiate it, as a completely other league.

*except MIM-104 biggrin



'80 was before >24 years..... It seems than SAM-s are a weapon of yesterday (SA-2 against fighters; SA-6 against ALE decoys; SA-10 against ~0 radial speed targets or ALE)....
Posted By: apelles

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/03/14 08:03 PM

Yes, but in 80's its a very advanced weapon. But in the present we don't know what the real capabilitys of the most modern aircrafts or SAMs.

I really don't know the f-22 is really a ghost, or the S-400 could fight with it. confused
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/05/14 07:44 PM

^^^^

That is a sort of tricky thing to answer. The S400 would eventually detect the F-22, yes. But how far?

The F-22 can release 8 SDBs from 50-60nm to bombard the SAM with, and it can also jam it. The small radar signature of the fighter also means the missile seeker will have problems.

What if there is more than 1 F-22, incoming on multiple angles, and support jammers lessening the sensitivity of the S400?

Of course, S400 will not be alone and will also be equipped with decoys to help it fight, and assistance from own air force etc.
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 08:22 AM

And those eight SDBs aren't stealthy, and because they're just gliding they're not fast and they can't sneak up on the SAM site at low level. They'll approach the site at medium altitude, slowly. They're sitting ducks, very easy to shoot down.

Though they only cost $90,000. So I guess you could just keep releasing hundreds of them till the enemy runs out of expensive missiles.
Posted By: Vympel

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 08:51 AM

Not necessarily expensive... Pantsir and Tor should be there to take out those bombs. Assuming enemy is able to pinpoint the location of SAM site.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 10:10 AM

I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of SDBs to be shot down in-flight by any air defence system (being it S-400, Pantsir, Tor, etc...). SDBs (Small diameter bombs) like the name indicates are very small bombs which means they have a very small RCS, which should make them "stealth" or "almost stealth".

Besides I have yet to see any defence system to be effective at shooting down any smart weapons (Paveway or JDAMs for example) specially outside a "non-controlled" environment (i.e. a test environment) or resuming in a real combat scenario/environment.
Anyway even if I'm proven to be wrong with my statements above, one can also use a F-35 equipped with JSOW (which have a similar range of a SDB and it's truly a stealth weapon) to engage those S-400 (or any other air defence system for that matter).
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 10:28 AM

You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!

If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!

If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!

Basically the SDB has to get close enough to the S-400 that the SAM site won't be able to react in time to the SDB before it hits the site. I don't know for sure how fast SDBs are, but I guess they are slow, they're just glide bombs. So maybe 200m/s. So even 4km away would give the S-400 twenty seconds to react. At 4km the radar reflections of even a small stealthy target are going to be huge and easy to detect.
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
I have my doubts regarding the feasibility of SDBs to be shot down in-flight by any air defence system (being it S-400, Pantsir, Tor, etc...). SDBs (Small diameter bombs) like the name indicates are very small bombs which means they have a very small RCS, which should make them "stealth" or "almost stealth".

Besides I have yet to see any defence system to be effective at shooting down any smart weapons (Paveway or JDAMs for example) specially outside a "non-controlled" environment (i.e. a test environment) or resuming in a real combat scenario/environment.
Anyway even if I'm proven to be wrong with my statements above, one can also use a F-35 equipped with JSOW (which have a similar range of a SDB and it's truly a stealth weapon) to engage those S-400 (or any other air defence system for that matter).


How comes that JSOW is a stealth weapon ?
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 06:39 PM

Originally Posted By: ePap
How comes that JSOW is a stealth weapon ?


According to several sources. Here's an example:
http://www.deagel.com/Standoff-Weapons/AGM-154A-JSOW_a001153001.aspx

"JSOW also features low-signature/stealth design to engage actively defended targets"

Also by looking closely at the JSOW airframe, it seems clear (at least to me) that it has a stealth design.


Originally Posted By: ePap

I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !


Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 06:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!

If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!

If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!

Basically the SDB has to get close enough to the S-400 that the SAM site won't be able to react in time to the SDB before it hits the site. I don't know for sure how fast SDBs are, but I guess they are slow, they're just glide bombs. So maybe 200m/s. So even 4km away would give the S-400 twenty seconds to react. At 4km the radar reflections of even a small stealthy target are going to be huge and easy to detect.


No, I didn't forget about range factor and that any Stealth object can be detected by any radar when it's close enough to the radar source.
I also didn't say that the S-400 (or other air defence systems, BTW) could never shot down SDBs, actually I believe it can, at least in theory but only in "ideal" conditions and in wartime conditions are usually very far from "ideal".
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: ePap
How comes that JSOW is a stealth weapon ?


According to several sources. Here's an example:
http://www.deagel.com/Standoff-Weapons/AGM-154A-JSOW_a001153001.aspx

"JSOW also features low-signature/stealth design to engage actively defended targets"

Also by looking closely at the JSOW airframe, it seems clear (at least to me) that it has a stealth design.


Originally Posted By: ePap

I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !


Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!


A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 07:36 PM

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/06/14 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Mdore
You've forgetting the most important factor in whether a radar can detect a target or not. Range!

If you halve the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by sixteen times!

If you quarter the range to a target, you increase the received radar reflection strength by 256 times!


Are you sure with the numbers?
Posted By: Mdore

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/07/14 07:52 AM

Yup, I'm sure.

Radar signals have to make a two way journey, so they fall off at the square of the distance on the way to the aircraft, then the reflections fall off at the square of the distance on the way back to the radar receiver. Squared twice is fourth power. distance˛˛ = distance^4

It makes radar detection REALLY dependent on range.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/07/14 06:38 PM

Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1?

See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles.

But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out.

At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.

Originally Posted By: ePap
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/07/14 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.

Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped).

Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99.

One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough.

(One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword...
... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/07/14 07:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.



I guess he means MALD decoys.... May moderators move those posts in new topic...., like "Modern air defense", or similar ?
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/07/14 08:24 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Do you know the real capabilities of a system and tactics designed to penetrate airspace defended by TOR-M1?

See, all of these SAMs are great, but one way or the other, compared to aircraft they are static defenses. Also, TOR is simply old. If you're just facing a single F-35 or F-22 lobbing SDBs everywhere, ok, great. Maybe he'll run out of SDBs before you run out of missiles.

But on the other hand, if he comes in with a 4 ship and lobs 32 SDBs (it doesn't even matter if he can find the SAM battery. If you don't reveal it's location right then and there, those SDBs destroy whatever they are aimed at. That might be your fuel depot), you're forced to defend - and in reality, what you will be defending against is 4 F-35's (let's forget F-22's for a moment, ground attack is really not their job, but they can do it) lobbing their SDBs and then jamming any radar that turns on. Another 4 F-35's behind them will be doing a similar job, so that the front guys can get out.

At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.

Originally Posted By: ePap
A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...


Thanks God that till now my country didn't start world war III and won't face the above scenario ...

PS:1. TOR-m1 is an element in the intergrated Air Defence of NATO ,among many others.
2.Yes,i have participated many times in missions designed to protect/penetrate air deference assets.Do you ?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/08/14 01:13 PM

Originally Posted By: ePap
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !

Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!

A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...



Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/08/14 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


At the same time, they will be 'escorted' by airborne decoys giving you false targets to shoot at.

If you are facing someone who's operating F-22/35, F-18E/F, EF2000 or Rafale, you have huge incoming problems, because they really have the money to make your defenses look like a circus.

Think USAF vs. Iraqi IADS.


Bit offtopic here, but the capability you mention here (decoys - ODS), are long ago lost by the US.
No decoys were used in 99 OAF.

Jamming was not so strong (NAVY EA-6B had to cover USAF planes, as the EF111 were scrapped).

Technology designed in the '50s(!!!) were able to kill the most advanced US jet of 99.

One of my reason why I developed SAMSIM, is to show you (military enthusiast of the west) how dangerous these SAM's can be if you do not take them seriously enough.

(One of a US Electronic Warfare officer compared them to a Samurai Sword...
... hopelessly outdated technology, but still as deadly as ever)


I agree with GrayGhost. Jamming and how it's employed is one of those many factors/variables that makes real wartime scenarios very different from peace time training/exercises scenarios.

Don't forget that countries such as US (at least the US Navy) and Australia (among other countries) will still really on jamming aircraft in the future, in the case of the US Navy and Australian Air Force (RAAF) with the F/A-18G Growler.

Also don't forget that modern aircraft equipped with AESA radars such as the F-22 and F-35 will have self standoff jamming capabilities using their AESA radars (and on board jamming equipment of course).
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/08/14 03:32 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: ePap
I can assure you that TOR-M1 can easily wipe out them including Paveway and JDAM !

Also according to the Russians, the Mig-29 should be able to wipe out F-16s, F/A-18s and even F-15s - reality was very diferent tho!

A low cost glider with low-signature (so called stealth designed) to be difficult target for TOR-M1 ?

I would love my country to have a possible threat with the same analysis/approach like you do .

My confidence for TOR-m1 is not coming from Russians but from the real capabilities of the systems which we use in real world for more than 12 years ...



Well, I could also say that I would hate to see my countries (I "have" two) armed forces underestimate enemy threats and overestimate their own capabilities like you do.


I assume that you have not clearly realized that SAMSIM is not just another simulator and some people try to contribute it with infos coming from real world and not from what you can find on the Internet or to other flight sims...
So SAMSIM is my concern and I stick to it._
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/10/14 09:59 AM

S-300PMU2



Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/10/14 10:00 AM

S-400


Posted By: Markan

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/11/14 08:03 PM

Interesting video about anti advance sam weapons and tactics
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/11/14 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
S-300PMU2




This is the main difference between S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A Gargoyle) 48N6 missile (150km max range), and S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B Gargoyle) 48N6D missile (200km max range).


Posted By: jazjar

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 04:40 PM

What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 05:22 PM

Originally Posted By: jazjar
What is the misshapen quadrilateral box for? Engagement range for a height vs. Range display? Also what are the hollow circles on the display for?


box - kiling zone
circles - missiles
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 05:32 PM

A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 05:38 PM

And targets (dots) with their movement vectors.

The killing zone is for the missile/system (that's why you can see target movement vectors). And it is indicative - it is for a given probability, even target outside of it may be hit....
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 05:51 PM

The killing zone/in range zone is very specific and very important computation on the FC computer and not something indicative.
Also it (killing zone) has nothing to do with killing probabilities.

So,target vectoring is calculated in acquisition mode and killing zone in tracking mode.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: ePap
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives


This is the missile killing zone (same against each type of target), not the missile firing zone (depending on target speed and parameter).

The missile killing zone is displayed on the round display (right), while target specific firing zone is displayed on the rectangular (left) display.



The missile killing zone display has vertical and horizontal view...


Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 06:22 PM

Yes, like Hpasp said.
And it has something to do with probability - in most cases target will be hit inside of this envelope. With some probability target will not be hit at all and some time target outside of this envelope can be also hit. When missile for example reach maximum range, it will not hit the wall :-) and it may hit target.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 06:35 PM

The displayed killing zone in the Soviet systems are generally calculated as X% (system specific) killing probability of a non jamming, non maneuvering (straight flying) target.

X%
Dvina - 96% - with 3 missiles
Volhov - 99% - with 3 missiles
Neva - 98% - with 2 missiles
Vega - 98% - with 3 missiles
KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile

A much smaller zone is also calculated, where maneuvering but non jamming target could be killed with the same, system specific probability.
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 06:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
The displayed killing zone in the Soviet systems are generally calculated as X% (system specific) killing probability of a non jamming, non maneuvering (straight flying) target.

X%
Dvina - 96% - with 3 missiles
Volhov - 99% - with 3 missiles
Neva - 98% - with 2 missiles
Vega - 98% - with 3 missiles
KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile

A much smaller zone is also calculated, where maneuvering but non jamming target could be killed with the same, system specific probability.


Thanks for the infos.West systems (like hawk) do not calculate hit probabilities.
But still (I believe) these calculations are not real feedbacks ,just indications for the operators to fire at will smile2
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: ePap
A far as I know the killing zone should be refered to a specific target and not to multiple targets.
So I assume that these boundaries are indicatives


This is the missile killing zone (same against each type of target), not the missile firing zone (depending on target speed and parameter).

The missile killing zone is displayed on the round display (right), while target specific firing zone is displayed on the rectangular (left) display.



The missile killing zone display has vertical and horizontal view...






Very informative!Thank you.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:07 PM

For example the S-75M3 Volhov APP, displays the killing zone of the V755 missile against non maneuvering, non jamming target. (99% kill probability with 3 missile salvo, based on firing range data)

Against maneuvering (3~4g) non jamming target, you need to reduce your max killing range with 10~15km. (99% kill probability with 3 missile salvo, based on firing range data)

In case of using the V759 missile against maneuvering (5~6g ) non jamming target, all APP displayed distances should be reduced further with ~5km.


Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:12 PM

Hpasp.
The missile kill zone is the same always ???
The missile flight time,yes.
If the target is maneuvering the missile do the same and so the zone changes .

Am I missing something rolleyes
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

X%
Dvina - 96% - with 3 missiles
Volhov - 99% - with 3 missiles
Neva - 98% - with 2 missiles
Vega - 98% - with 3 missiles
KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile



Pretty optimistic (especially Krug... Agreed for VEGA!) wink
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:20 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp

X%
Dvina - 96% - with 3 missiles
Volhov - 99% - with 3 missiles
Neva - 98% - with 2 missiles
Vega - 98% - with 3 missiles
KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile



Pretty optimistic (especially Krug... Agreed for VEGA!) wink


KRUG - 97% - with 1 missile against straight flying - non jamming target.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: ePap
Hpasp.
The missile kill zone is the same always ???
The missile flight time,yes.
If the target is maneuvering the missile do the same and so the zone changes .

Am I missing something rolleyes


I really expected this comment, and it is a valid one.

If we remember, the S-75M Volhov maximum killing range is...
Vtarget<Mach1 - 56km
Vtarget<Mach2 - 43km
Vtarget<Mach3 - 40km
... depending on target speed, so you are correct.

But this is valid only if the missile-target speed range is comparable.
(Missile 2.6~4Mach, target 1~3Mach)

With the S-300 the missile speed is (6Mach) well above the expected air breathing target speed (4Mach).

In case you have ballistic missile target (9Mach), your range would be again (similarly) reduced to 40km from the original 150km.
Posted By: ePap

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/16/14 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: ePap
Hpasp.
The missile kill zone is the same always ???
The missile flight time,yes.
If the target is maneuvering the missile do the same and so the zone changes .

Am I missing something rolleyes


I really expected this comment, and it is a valid one.

If we remember, the S-75M Volhov maximum killing range is...
Vtarget<Mach1 - 56km
Vtarget<Mach2 - 43km
Vtarget<Mach3 - 40km
... depending on target speed, so you are correct.

But this is valid only if the missile-target speed range is comparable.
(Missile 2.6~4Mach, target 1~3Mach)

With the S-300 the missile speed is (6Mach) well above the expected air breathing target speed (4Mach).

In case you have ballistic missile target (9Mach), your range would be again (similarly) reduced to 40km from the original 150km.


+1 thumbsup
Posted By: Architrav

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 03/07/14 08:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Best book so far...

Der Fla-Raketenkomplex S-300PMU in der NVA




Based on Hpasp's suggestion I've read that some time ago. It's not as much detailed on the switch-for-switch operation of the FlA-Raketenkomplex, but more on the oddities of the system comparet to its electronic valve-based forefathers, the military organization of Eastern Germany and how its air defense soldiers experienced the last days of Eastern Germany.
On line of thought very clearly gets transported throughout the book, though: How - forgive me the rude term - blue-balled the German soldiers felt were when they finally got the air defense system they've ever dreamed of, only to have to return it after a long time of training and a few months after it entered service.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 03/12/14 03:22 PM

How to block an S-300PS battery without extensive EW/Weasel Support, presented by Russia...




corrected PS
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 03/12/14 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
How to block an S-300PMU1 battery without extensive EW/Weasel Support, presented by Russia...


Acoording to Cold War-era Russian saying, "The best air defence is your tank at enemy's airfield"

P. S.: i'd say it's ordinary Soviet-era S-300PS, not PMU-1...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 03/23/14 09:35 AM

Seems to be a technical battery...
- no launchers
- no RPC
- lots of TZM
- one NVO
- two 40V6 mast
- lots of Diesel vans
- lots of repair cabins

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/29/14 05:02 PM

Meanwhile in Ashuluk...
http://englishrussia.com/2014/04/28/air-defense-drill-in-ashuluk






Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 05/05/14 06:50 AM

hpasp.... sa-10b does armed with TOV ? confused
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 05/05/14 07:31 AM

nope
rolleyes
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/25/14 07:14 PM

You SAMSIM players had the unique possibility to fight and survive most of the SAM battles of the last half century of the COLDWAR best equipment (SA-2E/F, SA-3B, SA-4B, SA-5B, SA-8B, ZSU-23-4V1).

Can I ask you to list the features you missed during your battles from your system most?
Posted By: scrim

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/25/14 11:02 PM

The things I'm guessing every SAM crew wants: Longer range, better radars, and the ability to track, lock on to and engage targets in "stealth", without enemy aircraft being able to detect what I'm up to or lob ARMs at me.

It's asking a lot, but low ambitions have rarely furthered technology.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/26/14 05:10 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
The things I'm guessing every SAM crew wants: Longer range, better radars, and the ability to track, lock on to and engage targets in "stealth", without enemy aircraft being able to detect what I'm up to or lob ARMs at me.

It's asking a lot, but low ambitions have rarely furthered technology.


Ok, just wanted to ask specific topics of the SA-2E/F, SA-3B, SA-4B, SA-5B, SA-8B, ZSU-23-4V1 systems, where you as a user felt it could be improved.
Posted By: scrim

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/26/14 05:24 PM

Woops, silly me!

For the Shilka, I'm really looking forward to perhaps getting an optical sight. It'd be fun to see the tracers flying out with that RoF.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 11/05/14 08:37 PM

Ukr Gas
rolleyes

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/18/15 12:59 PM

Failed launch...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/21/15 06:10 PM



Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/22/15 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim

For the Shilka, I'm really looking forward to perhaps getting an optical sight. It'd be fun to see the tracers flying out with that RoF.



+1 thumbsup
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/22/15 06:17 PM

Good old S-300PT Biryusa (SA-10A) panel...


Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/22/15 08:52 PM

+++++++ hpasp thumbsup
the pictures really talking to me that we will have great untique thing in the future jackolantern
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/23/15 09:23 AM

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 ?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/23/15 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: farokh
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.
sigh
Posted By: Agiel7

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/24/15 08:55 AM

@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?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Agiel7
@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
Posted By: Agiel7

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:12 PM

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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Agiel7
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):

Click to reveal..


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)
Posted By: Agiel7

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:39 PM

Thanks for the link, Hpasp. Easily the best piece of English literature on the system I've seen.

Interesting excerpt regarding CEC:

Quote:
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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Agiel7
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...
rolleyes
Posted By: Agiel7

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 06:58 PM

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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/25/15 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Agiel7
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...)
yep

Originally Posted By: Agiel7
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.
oops

*My native Hungarian language is from the Finno-Ugric family, having less similarity to Slavic languages, than others...



Posted By: ckfinite

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/26/15 03:26 AM

Quote:
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.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/26/15 06:40 AM

Originally Posted By: ckfinite
Quote:
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!
biggrin
like NASAMS
Posted By: ckfinite

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/26/15 03:28 PM

Quote:

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?
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/26/15 03:50 PM

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 smile

Originally Posted By: ckfinite
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?
Posted By: ckfinite

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/26/15 04:06 PM

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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?
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/27/15 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: ckfinite
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.


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.

Quote:
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?


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.
Posted By: Agiel7

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/29/15 10:08 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost

@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


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.
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/30/15 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp

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)


Unless you use non-aerodynamic controls, such as small rocket motors, employed on ERINT, 9M96 or Aster missiles...
Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/30/15 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Originally Posted By: ckfinite
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.


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?).


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.

Quote:

As for the 48N6, part of the reason why they don't use ARH is cost.

Indeed, small 9M96 cost about twice as much as much larger 48N6.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/30/15 02:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Lonewolf357

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

Posted By: Lonewolf357

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/30/15 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: Lonewolf357

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


The missile size does not counts here...


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

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/15/15 04:53 PM

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


Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/15/15 10:02 PM

Nice, do you have some description of indicators?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/16/15 07:55 AM

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...
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/16/15 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
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?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/17/15 03:34 PM

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.
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 08:11 AM

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

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 09:26 AM

Thanks! thumbsup

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)?
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: farokh
it seems hpasp read all of c300 manual....
si why he doesnt create it on samsim
that is is the question hahaha


If you read correctly, you would know that he has never seen such a manual.... banghead
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
Originally Posted By: farokh
it seems hpasp read all of c300 manual....
si why he doesnt create it on samsim
that is is the question hahaha


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

i said it... because he has great and clear information about c300 rolleyes
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 12:04 PM

Unfortunately, I only know the generic working, but not the details...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 12:19 PM

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.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 12:35 PM

Thanks thumbsup
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 02:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Basic idea of any multi channel system is to keep switching on, and try to kill the incoming HARM's.



hmmm. even sa6 ?
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 03:43 PM

hey guys.. hura...
today.. iran leader ship air defense said
next week in moskow we sign c300 papers

but they doesnt explain about type of systems
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 03:53 PM

So far several countries fielded, different versions of the S-300 family...

S-300PT Birusa (SA-10A) fielded in the Soviet Union

S-300PS Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) fielded in the Soviet Union
S-300PMU Volhov-M6 (SA-10B) exported into East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, China

S-300V (SA-12) fielded in the Soviet Union

S-300PM Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) fielded in the Soviet Union
S-300PMU-1 Volhov-M6M (SA-20A) exported into China, Greece, Algeria, Vietnam

S-300PMU-2 Favorit (SA-20B) exported into China

S-400 Triumf (SA-21) fielded in Russia

S-300VM Antey-2500 (SA-23) fielded in Russia
S-300VM Antey-2500 (SA-23) export Egypt, Venezuela

... if you drop us photos, we can help identify, or just read this one:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/azq3nv4tajvleeq/The_S-300_and_S-400.pdf
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 04:23 PM

sadly... all of pix of c300 in irans midias are different and fake... because reporters usually take a news and after it.. they search on internet and cut the good picture for title...
so we cant trust to their photos ...
ussualy air defejse deploy the systems and then
they give access to reporter and midia to take live record ..
untill live record .. no one of us underatand what we will have
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/18/15 06:22 PM

Speculations in russian press are about PMU-1....
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/20/15 08:07 PM

Some marketing materials...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/d9t61r0bsbx89rm/S-300PMU.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/99qnppkncnnczh6/S-300PMU1-2.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/6o5oz1doa3aaq18/S-300PMU2.pdf
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/21/15 02:42 PM

S-400

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/25/15 12:08 PM

Vietnamese PMU-1



Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/25/15 07:12 PM

What is really interesting in these S-300PMU1 (SA-20A) shots, is the additional officer.

Compared to the S-300PMU (SA-10B) where 5+1 officer 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.


Here you have 6 officer workplace: firing officer, azimuth officer, target acquisition officer, and 3 manual trackers (range, and two angles). Either the commander stands behind them, or he takes the azimuth officer position...
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/27/15 07:23 PM

Just for free...

http://en.tengrinews.kz/military/Russia-...ems-for-261594/
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/08/15 09:42 PM

A few pictures from the original (old) Altek-300 training simulator showing details of some indicators:


Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/08/15 09:47 PM

The second one depicts one workplace from an 83M6 command post (analogic to K9 in case of S-200).

Picture from some older generation:
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 10/10/15 04:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd
A few pictures from the original (old) Altek-300 training simulator showing details of some indicators:







More...
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/14/16 10:14 AM

From Czech forum - Belarus move from S-200 to S-300

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/14/16 11:23 AM

Traitors.... pitchafit
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 02/14/16 01:18 PM

Quite a stepback from 255km effective range to 90km...
... also funny that they legoed together several buttons in a wrong color (red instead of green).
biggrin
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/11/16 09:08 AM



Recived smile
Pls dont ask anymore wink
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/11/16 11:20 AM

What exactly?
biggrin
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/12/16 04:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
What exactly?
biggrin


http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1844869.html
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 04/24/16 07:07 PM

Ooops...
eek
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3214161

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 08/05/16 07:09 AM

My favorit one...
... they are doing manual tracking.
biggrin

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 09/08/16 12:36 PM

From CS forum:

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 09/08/16 12:37 PM

Another:

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 09/08/16 12:38 PM

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 09/25/16 08:24 AM

Iranian S-300PMU



Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/05/16 12:17 PM

Auch...
oops




Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/09/16 08:24 PM

Very nice and detailed info about the S-400 export version, offered for India...

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.hu/2016/10/s-400-triumf-lr-sams-arriving-by-2018.html

thumbsup








Posted By: KJakker

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/09/16 11:03 PM

Hpasp, do you believe the maximum engagement ranges listed above, 380km against aircraft and 60km against ballistic missiles is accurate?

In your MIM-104 Patriot thread your missile comparison list says, "48N6E2 missile 200km range", "48N6DM missile 250km range". I have some ideas as to how the 9M96E2 can have double the range of the 9m96 but do you have any idea as to how the Russians got another 120 to 180 kilometers of range out of the 48N6E2 and 48N6E3 missiles?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/10/16 03:53 PM

40N6 is a completely new missile, compared to the 48N6 family, and it had a long protracted development.

missile type - weight - range
5V55R - 1665kg - 75km
48N6 - 1800kg - 150km
48N6D - 1835kg - 200km
48N6DM - 1835kg - 250km
40N6 - 1893kg - 380km

Missile weight is continuously increased, and using more powerful propellant, or carbon fiber missile body, the extra gain of impulse could be much more than the weight difference would suggest.

Do not forget, that these are basically end phase guided ballistic missiles.
A quick math* of the required burnout speed for ballistic missiles reveals...
range - required speed
250km - 1400m/s
380km - 1750m/s
... and the 48N6 family could already achieve 2100m/s, so IMHO the maximum range of the system is rather limited by the fire control and target acquisition radars tracking range, than missile kinematic.


*some quick thumb rules for calculating approx. ballistic missile parameters:

Flight Times of Ballistic Missiles lofted in Maximum-Range Trajectories
FlightTime = SQRT (Range) * 14
where
FlightTime is in seconds
Range is in kilometers

Speeds of Ballistic Missiles lofted in Maximum-Range Trajectories
Speed = SQRT (Range) * 0.09
where
Speed is in km/sec
Range is in kilometers

Apogees of Ballistic Missiles lofted in Maximum-Range Trajectories
Apogee = Range * 0.25
where
Apogee is in kilometers
Range is in kilometers
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/10/16 08:05 PM

Nice thumbsup
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/10/16 08:11 PM

Interesting pictures about the S-400 specs, thanks for sharing Hpasp.

What I find interesting the most is the Maximum target designation range, which for the S-400 is 390Km for a 4 Square Meter RCS target.

This means that the S-400 should only be able to detect (or at least designate) a F-35 Stealth Fighter aircraft which has a RCS of around 0.001 square meter (on average) at a maximum range of around (and only) 49km or for those more used to Western military aircraft, at around 26.5 Nautical Miles (and this without the F-35 using its jamming/EW techniques).

That's extremely low/short ranged and even more so considering that the S-400 is one of the best and most powerful air defence systems in the world so no wonder why Israel is so keen to procure the F-35 to counter potential and future S-400 deployment on nations around (and hostile to) Israel.

What's funny is there are still many people out there who doubt the usefulness of Stealth aircraft (namely about the F-35).
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/10/16 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
40N6 is a completely new missile, compared to the 48N6 family, and it had a long protracted development.

missile type - weight - range
5V55R - 1665kg - 75km
48N6 - 1800kg - 150km
48N6D - 1835kg - 200km
48N6DM - 1835kg - 250km
40N6 - 1893kg - 380km

Missile weight is continuously increased, and using more powerful propellant, or carbon fiber missile body, the extra gain of impulse could be much more than the weight difference would suggest.

Do not forget, that these are basically end phase guided ballistic missiles.
A quick math* of the required burnout speed for ballistic missiles reveals...
range - required speed
250km - 1400m/s
380km - 1750m/s
... and the 48N6 family could already achieve 2100m/s, so IMHO the maximum range of the system is rather limited by the fire control and target acquisition radars tracking range, than missile kinematic.




Indeed and from what I read in terms of guidance the 40N6 missile is or can be equipped with an Active Radar Seeker, is this correct?
If this is the case than an Active Radar Seeker would certainly increase the missile engagement range capability since it would be less dependant on the ground based fire control and acquisition radars.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/11/16 01:42 PM

What I find interesting the most is the Maximum target designation range, which for the S-400 is 390Km for a 4 Square Meter RCS target.
This means that the S-400 should only be able to detect (or at least designate) a F-35 Stealth Fighter aircraft which has a RCS of around 0.001 square meter (on average) at a maximum range of around (and only) 49km or for those more used to Western military aircraft, at around 26.5 Nautical Miles (and this without the F-35 using its jamming/EW techniques).
That's extremely low/short ranged and even more so considering that the S-400 is one of the best and most powerful air defence systems in the world so no wonder why Israel is so keen to procure the F-35 to counter potential and future S-400 deployment on nations around (and hostile to) Israel.


I would not see this picture so bright.
Let me use a target with RCS of 0.006 square meters (this is what I knew for the F-35).

Lets cut the threat the S-400 poses into two scenario:

Scenario-1 (as of today, while the F-35 is under testing)
Most of the fielded batteries in Russia, including the unit in Syria have the following equipment:
S-400 battery with (usually eight) 5P85S3 (like in Syria) or eight 5P85T3 missile launchers.
These units are armed with the 250km ranged 48N6DM missiles.
After the 96L6 all-altitude target detection radar acquires the stealth (with the RCS of 0.006 square meter), the 92N6 multi-functional radar can start engaging it only from 49km. (as you caltulated correctly)

Scenario-2 (proposed for India, future option when the F-35 will be a threat)
S-400 battery having 51P6 missile launchers.
Unit is armed with the 380km ranged 40N6 and the 120km ranged 9M96D missiles.
After the 91N6 target detection radar (in mode M2/M3/M4) acquires the stealth from 94km, the 92N6 multi-functional radar can start engaging with the 9M96D missiles as it has inertial guidance with mid-course datalink and active radar seeker for the last few seconds of the engagement.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/11/16 05:00 PM

Hpasp,

I believe you have a typo in your second situation, you mentioned that 91N6 target detection radar can acquire the F-35 at 94Km but I think you mean 49Km instead (you have it correct in the first situation).

The RCS of the F-35 is said to be in the order of 0.0014 square meters which is area of a standard a golf ball. So rounding the number it gives 0.001 square meters.
However this RCS value is an average value considering all angles (frontal, sides, rear) of the F-35 and it's known that for example the F-35 RCS in its frontal arc is below that 0.001 square meter value.
Actually it was officially acknowledged by the USAF that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 when both aircraft are compared in their respective frontal arcs (This was mentioned my USAF Gen. Hostage if I'm not mistaken).
So if the F-35 is traveling towards a S-400 site, the F-35 RCS to be considered (if we would want to be extremely rigorous) should be much lower than 0.001 square meters.

But even considering the "conservative" 0.001 square meter RCS number (which favour "less" the F-35) there are large (I would say huge) problems with any of your scenarios for the S-400 side. For example:
- At just above 49Km there are a number of weapons that the F-35 can employ well outside the 49Km range. Most notably, is the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) in both it's variants, the SDBI and the SDBII (the later, granted is still in development but soon to be deployed and the SDBI is ).
JSOW is an another (and current) weapon that the F-35 could easily employ against the S-400 and well outside its detection range.
- The F-35 has it's own EW suite which can perform EW warfare against any radar (including the S-400). The F-35 with its stealth and EW could likely employ the shorter range JDAMs against the S-400 without the S-400 ever detecting it, or resuming it's extremely possible that the F-35 with its stealth and EW combo wouldn't be detected at the "theoretical" 49Km "maximum" range but well below (shorter) than that!
- The F-35's DAS (Distributed Aperture System) would detect any incoming missile launched by the S-400 granting it early warning and a much better ability to avoid and evade incoming missiles.


I can only see the S-400 having some success against the F-35 in an ambush style tactic where the S-400 radars would only be turned on when an incoming F-35 is flying well within the 49Km detection radius. Of course the challenge would be knowing where the incoming F-35 really is and as such if any F-35 is or not within the "effective" range of a certain S-400 system.

However I do agree that the S-400 would be a "killer" or extremely dangerous for any 4.5gen fighter aircraft (like the Super Hornet, Typhoon or Rafale).
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/11/16 06:26 PM

I believe you have a typo in your second situation, you mentioned that 91N6 target detection radar can acquire the F-35 at 94Km but I think you mean 49Km instead (you have it correct in the first situation).

No typo, but two different target acquisition radars in those two situations.
biggrin

96L6 all-altitude target detection radar (Scenario-1)


91N6 target detection radar (Scenario-2)


In mode M2, M3, and M4, its target detection range against 1 sqrm target is 338km.
If you calculate it against 0,006sqrm you will get 94km.

For me to use different F-35 RCS value, I would ask you to provide source.
winkngrin
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/12/16 06:30 PM

Regarding the F-35 RCS and according to publically released information by the USAF itself, the F-35 RCS is equivalent to the area of a golf ball.
This released information can be found on several websites across the web, including this one:

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx

Excerpt from the news (can be read in the website above):
Quote:

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.



Considering that a standard golf ball has a Diameter of 42.67mm or a Radius of 21.335mm (this can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_ball ) and knowing that the area calculation of a circle is:

A = Pi * Radius * Radius (Or square of Radius) we have:

A = 3.1415 * 0.021335 * 0.021335

Which means that:
A = 0.00143 square meters ---> This is the approximate RCS of the F-35.

Rounding it, we have the 0.001 square meters which I (and most people by the way) have been using as a value for the F-35 RCS.


Regarding the F-35 versus the F-22 stealth comparison, there's the following comment from USAF Gen. Mike Hostage which you can read here:

http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealt...;cl=article_4_b

which says:
Quote:

The F-35 cross section is much smaller than the F-22. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”


It is known that the average RCS of the F-22 is smaller than the average RCS of the F-35.
But it is also known that the F-35 in it's frontal arc is extremely stealthy, perhaps (and likely) the stealthiest of all aircraft in existence.
So and in my opinion have no doubts that what Gen. Mike Hostage is referring to is in terms of stealth comparison is regarding both aircraft frontal arc/sector. Which means that the F-35 is certainly to have a RCS much smaller than the 0.001 square meter value (which I mentioned before) in its frontal sector/arc.

On top of this the F-22 seems to use variable air intakes in order to reach speeds above Mach 2. Variable air intakes have the advantage of giving some aircraft the ability of reach speed well over Mach 2 however variable air intakes have an impact on RCS -> They increase the aircraft's RCS in its frontal sector/arc.
Lockheed Martin/USAF/US Military seems to have been successful in substantially reducing the toll that variable air intakes have on RCS with the F-22 however I believe that it's safe to assume that this increase on RCS still occurs nonetheless.


Regarding the S-400 system and your best case scenario which is using the M2 and M4 modes (capable of detecting a target with 1 square meter at 338Km) we have a maximum detection range against the F-35 considering its average RCS to be 0.001 square meter (which again would be smaller if F-35 is flying towards the S-400 site) of being around 60km (quite far from the 94km in your scenario).

And even thou, a Small Diameter Bomb still has a range in excess of 110km.


I hope this is enough info for you wink
Posted By: Jonas85

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/12/16 09:40 PM

Here it goes the flame war about RCS numbers that nobody really knows in public...

I am very skeptical about taking the golf ball RCS speculations seriously (you know that the interviews of many star generals are always approved before the release, don't you?). It might serve more as a PSYOPS measure to convince your enemy in not usefulness of radar based defense and waste the money on "alternatives" rather than reflect the reality accurately.

What makes me think that Hpasp's value of 0.006m2 is much more reasonable is a comparison to the RCS of birds, which are said to be around 0.01m2 range. Also, this specific RCS value most likely holds only for a particular frequency bands, like X band. I've read somewhere that L-band radars have better capabilities in this regard.

Also, none of the scenarios considered included the possibility to couple a long-wave radar for search and then active guidance on the last few seconds of a missile flight. That would be the most interesting scenario for me.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/13/16 12:47 PM

And what can you tell us about the RCS of the B-2A?
The F-117A was already measured to be -30dBsm in a competitive environment.
biggrin

Meanwhile...
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/13/16 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
And what can you tell us about the RCS of the B-2A?
The F-117A was already measured to be -28dBsm in a competitive environment.
biggrin

Meanwhile...



http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-us-air-force-too-stealthy-2016-8

Quote:
During an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles.


screwy
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/14/16 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Jonas85
Here it goes the flame war about RCS numbers that nobody really knows in public...

I am very skeptical about taking the golf ball RCS speculations seriously (you know that the interviews of many star generals are always approved before the release, don't you?). It might serve more as a PSYOPS measure to convince your enemy in not usefulness of radar based defense and waste the money on "alternatives" rather than reflect the reality accurately.


I guess I could use the same kind of skepticism that you display to say for example: how the hell will the S-400 be able to detect a small target (1 square meter) at 338km which is almost at the edge of the Earth's curvature??

Why would the golf ball RCS of the F-35 be false which by the way is an information officially given by the United States Air Force (USAF) while at the same "blindly" believing in Russian official information?!
Actually it's well known that the Russians trend to exaggerate much about the actual capabilities of their equipment specially when compared to western countries, namely the USA.

So if you want to doubt about the RCS of the F-35 being in the magnitude of a golf ball you must also doubt about the ability for the S-400 to detect a 1 square meter at 338km away.
Anyway, both data "F-35 with an RCS of a golf ball" and the "S-400 ability to detect a 1 square meter at 338km away" are official data and as such must be taken with at least a good degree of credibility!

For my part I'm willing to believe in both data about the F-35 and the S-400. Or at least this is the information what we have to make a "close as possible" analysis.
And remember that afterall it is you (and only you) that's "speculating" since again afterall these values being discussed are again, official data.

The fact that Israel just increased their F-35 (they are now ordering 50 F-35As with perhaps more in the future) and it's well known that one of the reason that Israel is buying the F-35 is clearly to be able to defeat and to have an edge over potential the S-400 Air Defence Systems that could be field by its enemies in the near future seems to back up my point of view.


Originally Posted By: Jonas85

What makes me think that Hpasp's value of 0.006m2 is much more reasonable is a comparison to the RCS of birds, which are said to be around 0.01m2 range. Also, this specific RCS value most likely holds only for a particular frequency bands, like X band. I've read somewhere that L-band radars have better capabilities in this regard.

Also, none of the scenarios considered included the possibility to couple a long-wave radar for search and then active guidance on the last few seconds of a missile flight. That would be the most interesting scenario for me.


What does a comparison with birds have anything to do with being reasonable regarding RCS comparisons?? Last time I checked birds or at least bird sized and shaped metal objects don't have RAM material coatings and neither their shape was "designed" to avoid/defeat radio waves!
Or are you also disputing the official USAF information that the F-22 Raptor RCS is around the size of a metal marble or resuming around 0.0001 square meters??

Independently of what radar wave you use, a stealth or very low observable (VLO) aircraft will always have the advantage. That talk of yours about X or L band reminds me the most about one of the "web arguments" from the F-35 critics, that VHF/UHF radars will "magically" detect stealth aircraft. Well we all know (actually it is modeled here in SAM Simulator) that the P-18 radar which is a VHF radar could only detect an F-117 at a distance less than 30km which isn't much better then what the SNR radar from an SA-3 system was capable of detecting the same F-117.

Anyway, any current analysis that you can read about the F-35 RCS points it being at around 0.001 square meters and not 0.006.

So the problem that I have with the 0.006 square meter RCS value for the F-35 is that such value is equivalent to a ball which is the double in terms of diameter compared to a golf ball (again OFFICIAL USAF data). Resuming:
0.006 square meters equals a ball with a diameter of around 87 millimetres (twice or double of a golf ball)
0.00143 square meters equals a ball with a diameter of around 42 millimetres (around the size of a golf ball)

See the problem with the 0.006 square meter RCS for the F-35?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/14/16 08:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
And what can you tell us about the RCS of the B-2A?


Well the link above says that the F-35 is stealthier (lower RCS) compared to the B-2 which means that the B-2 RCS could be higher than 0.001 square meters.

However there's always the angle of the aircraft towards the radar source factor but again I take these RCS values to be average values (taking into account several angles/aspects of the aircraft).
What I mean with this, is that it's almost certain the F-35 is stealthier from the frontal aspect compared to the B-2 (I believe this is a given fact) but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the B-2 could be stealthier than the F-35 from the side or rear aspect even comparing with the F-35 (but this I don't know - it's only speculation from my part). This is known to be the case when comparing both the F-35 and the F-22 in terms of RCS.

The link that I gave you earlier contains the closest to an official information that I could gather from the B-2 RCS. So I don't know what's the RCS of the B-2 for sure. I've also seen RCS values on the web for the B-2 being lower than those of the F-35 (-30dBsm for the F-35 while -40dBsm for the B-2) but in case if these values are actually correct this could be the case that these RCS values are average values between several aspects of each aircraft (towards the radar source) instead of a single aspect (like frontal for example) that I was talking about.


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

The F-117A was already measured to be -28dBsm in a competitive environment.
biggrin


Yup.
What's funny is that there are many people that for some reason trend to think that only radar and/or air defence systems evolve over time but for some odd reason that Stealth Technology stay static and the same "forever" (like Stealth Technology for some odd reason couldn't evolve).

Regarding the RCS (in this case about the F-35 again versus air defence systems) I noticed that piston79 beat me in posting this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-us-air-force-too-stealthy-2016-8


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Meanwhile...


Oh Donald Trump, Donald Trump... What can I say?? Is it worth mentioning a guy that probably doesn't know the difference between a wing and a landing gear?? biggrin
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/16/16 06:43 AM

Thank you for the sources.

The variance of RCS depending on design goals can be significant.



The variance of RCS depending on radar azimuth is much more significant in case of stealth, than in ordinary Alu jets, and RCS spikes are generally accepted in the design.



Radar wavelength also plays in the radar received signal power, and on long wavelengths the RCS can be 5~10dBm higher.
In case of active low frequency radar signal suppression (cancellation) is used, this effect can be small.



Flight altitude in case of B-2A, resulted total impunity during OAF, while the Yugoslavs had only low altitude Neva and KUB systems deployed.
Flying at 40~50kft even with the same RCS as the F-117A had, resulted slant ranges simply outside of Neva SNR capabilities.
No accident that from the 15th night of the war, B-2As were allowed to fly without package support, as NATO become sure that Serbians has no operating S-75M Volhov / SA-75M Dvina systems.
S-75M Volhovs were scrapped by the Dayton peace accord, SA-75M Dvina were removed from service years earlier.



Source of the charts: ADA464771 B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA464771

Further arguing on system capabilities that are under development (no public sources but just heavy marketing) or offered for export in the (far-far) future is always thin ice, I would rather avoid.

I hope, that most of you recognized that the S-400 system detailed here...
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4319049/Re:_S-300PS/PMU_(SA-10B_Grumbl#Post4319049
... is an export version with downgraded capabilities, where one aspect was already mentioned earlier.

DJT might be uneducated in military topics, but he is the elected commander-in-chief.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/16/16 11:28 AM

Quote:
The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.


This quote does not fit with the real life measurement of the Yugoslav Air Defense.

F-117A radar detection range with P-18: 28km (upper beam can detect a 1sqrm RCS target from 150km)
F-117A measured RCS: 0,001sqrm, -30dBsm, similar to a 3,6cm diameter metal ball

It seems that the F-35A advertized RCS is inferior to the measured RCS of the F-117A.

F-35 advertized RCS: 0,0014sqrm, -29dBsm, similar to a 4,3cm diameter metal ball

I asked the B-2 advertized RCS, to point at this contradiction.


Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/16/16 05:38 PM

Thanks for the charts Hpasp, are they original declassified Northrop documents?

They show that the difference of RCS was expected to be about 2.5 times when comparing a x-band fire control radar and a VHF search radar such as the P-18.

For the S-400 it would mean that if used with the Nebo-M its detection range is against a ~ 2.5 times larger RCS target than the nominal detection range against those x-band golf ball and marble RCS statements of the US DoD. The 0.0014m˛ sphere becomes a 0.0042m˛ sphere. I dont have the radar equation at hand but a 500km class system such as the Nebo-M should have a useful range against a 0.0042m˛ (virtual RCS in VHF band) target. It should be added that this value should be even higher for VHF band radars as RAM and RAS is optimized and effetive for x-band and similar band radars much less effective in VHF band.

The question for a successful engagement is at which range the S-300/400 tracking radar will pick up the identified target. Here the brute force of a large aperture PESA able to create a concentrated pencil beam should be the key to put enough energy on the target. It should be possible that the VHF detection range would't be much higher than the tracking range again low-RSC targets.

*Edited for some corrections
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/16/16 08:12 PM

NEBO-ME has 510km detection range against a 1sqrm target.

F-22 with "marble" RCS could be detected from ~50km.
F-35 with "golf ball" RCS could be detected from ~100km.







In service.
Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/16/16 08:23 PM

I need to correct myself again.

Based on the Tacit Blue chart the delta between VHF and X-Band is not 2.5 times but 2.5 DBSM. If we take the golf ball value of 0.0014m˛ which translates to 28.5 DBSM at 2.5 less DBSM, 26 DBSM we would have a 0.0025m˛ target in VHF band. Less than half of my false number in the previous post.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Patarames
I need to correct myself again.

Based on the Tacit Blue chart the delta between VHF and X-Band is not 2.5 times but 2.5 DBSM. If we take the golf ball value of 0.0014m˛ which translates to 28.5 DBSM at 2.5 less DBSM, 26 DBSM we would have a 0.0025m˛ target in VHF band. Less than half of my false number in the previous post.


No scale on DBSM, how calculated that...?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Quote:
The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.


This quote does not fit with the real life measurement of the Yugoslav Air Defense.

F-117A radar detection range with P-18: 28km (upper beam can detect a 1sqrm RCS target from 150km)
F-117A measured RCS: 0,001sqrm, -30dBsm, similar to a 3,6cm diameter metal ball

It seems that the F-35A advertized RCS is inferior to the measured RCS of the F-117A.

F-35 advertized RCS: 0,0014sqrm, -29dBsm, similar to a 4,3cm diameter metal ball

I asked the B-2 advertized RCS, to point at this contradiction.




Actually the slight contradiction that we may be observing may not be a matter of "contradiction" but a matter of "rounding" or "value rounding" instead.

I admit that the following calculation that I'm going to post here is a bit hasty (so there's the possibility of error) but if we consider the RCS of the F-117A in square meters to be for example 0.00149 and converting this to dBsm we would have something around -28dBsm, right?

While at the same time a RCS of 0.00143 square meters or smaller (F-35 RCS) would put it more closely to the -29dBsm value.
Note that the "golf ball" size is a "reference size" (and likely not an "exact size") which is likely aimed for the general population (which doesn't have much knowledge about these subjects) so it's also likely that the F-35 RCS size could actually be a bit smaller than a golf ball itself.

So and resuming, if the real F-117 RCS would for example be 0.00149 this would be -28dBsm which by the way is the value that you gave earlier about the F-117A which IMO sounds about right.
But if you use the rounded value of 0.00149 to three (3) decimal places we would have 0.001, which means that "in theory" using both 0.00149 or 0.001 square meter RCS values for the F-117A would be somehow "correct".
However if using both values as absolute values to calculate the dBsm we would get different values, -28dBsm for 0.00149 and -30dBsm for 0.001.

This same rule/issue would also apply for the F-35 RCS where 0.00143 rounded up would also be 0.001 (like the rounded F-117A RCS value) but and nevertheless the F-35 would still be stealthier and with a dBsm value closer to -30dBsm when compared to the F-117A, or resuming the value of -29dBsm which you posted which again IMO it sounds about right as well.

Also note that the dBsm values are also "rounded values".


Oh, and thanks for charts and information Hpasp.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 12:35 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Patarames
I need to correct myself again.

Based on the Tacit Blue chart the delta between VHF and X-Band is not 2.5 times but 2.5 DBSM. If we take the golf ball value of 0.0014m˛ which translates to 28.5 DBSM at 2.5 less DBSM, 26 DBSM we would have a 0.0025m˛ target in VHF band. Less than half of my false number in the previous post.


No scale on DBSM, how calculated that...?



I found this formula on the web and this is what I use to calculate the dBsm values:

dBsm = 10 x log10(RCS/1m^2)


Basically all you need is to replace "RCS" with the value in square meters which you want to convert into dBsm.

Also "1m^2" means "1 square meter" and "log10" means "logarithm (base 10)".
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 03:42 PM

My guess would be:
biggrin


Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 09:38 PM

Well I just took the most conservative approach, the axis is labelled with DBSM so one unit is assumed to be one DBSM.

The graphs are so important because its one of the rare cases where a US document quantifies the RCS difference of different bands. Hence we can use exclusively US sources to quantify the effect of X-band compared to VHF-band. As you know Russia, China and recently Iran seem to be convinced that their VHF-band radars are effective against US low-RCS systems.

But as you said, we are not sure what one of those units really mean, Hpasp's guess could also be right.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/17/16 09:44 PM

Do not forget the important note on the chart.

NO LOW FREQUENCY SUPRESSION

With low frequency radar signal supression, the effect of VHF +10dBsm might be negated.

Note that the B-2A is equipped with a Northrop Grumman AN/ZSR-63 defensive avionics suite, and its function was never described in public.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/18/16 07:56 AM

Ok, lets try to summarize our discussion so far...

Approximate RCS averages;
F-117 and the F-35; -30dBsm, 4cm diameter metal golf ball
B-2; -35dBsm, 2cm diameter metal ball
F-22; -40dBsm, 1cm diameter metal marble

...but in this case, the corrected quote would be;

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better on the frontal aspect than the B-2 bomber F-117.
B-2 bomber which, in turn, was twice as good as the even older F-117.


biggrin
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/18/16 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Ok, lets try to summarize our discussion so far...

Approximate RCS averages;
F-117 and the F-35; -30dBsm, 4cm diameter metal golf ball
B-2; -35dBsm, 2cm diameter metal ball
F-22; -40dBsm, 1cm diameter metal marble


Yes, those values look quite believable to me and makes sense specially when compared with what's publically known.



Originally Posted By: Hpasp

...but in this case, the corrected quote would be;

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better on the frontal aspect than the B-2 bomber F-117.
B-2 bomber which, in turn, was twice as good as the even older F-117.


biggrin


In general I agree with the above except for the first Strikethrough text. In my opinion is should be:

Quote:

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better on the frontal aspect than the B-2 bomber and the F-117.
B-2 bomber which, in turn, was twice as good as the even older F-117.



Like I previously said, the F-35 is also stealthier than the F-22 on the frontal aspect (for example this was somehow confirmed by USAF Gen. Mike Hostage) and if the F-35 is indeed stealthier than the F-22 on the frontal aspect than it should also be stealthier than the B-2 on the frontal aspect as well.
Actually this shouldn't be hard to achieve or to conceive.

First, the B-2 airframe design which is a flying wing which is a design that was found to be "stealth" by accident.
So it should be no wonder that dedicated (and more modern) aircraft stealth designs such as the F-22 and the F-35 could be stealthier than the B-2 specially on some angles like the frontal aspect.

Secondly and for example lets use the following guessed values:

B-2 frontal aspect RCS --> 0.0002 square meters
B-2 side aspect RCS --> 0.0004 square meters
B-2 rear aspect RCS --> 0.0003 square meters
In this case the Average RCS which is what we simply and usually know as RCS for the B-2 would be 0.0003 square meters (your B-2 RCS prediction).

Now for the F-35:
F-35 frontal aspect RCS --> 0.0001 square meters
F-35 side aspect RCS --> 0.002 square meters
F-35 rear aspect RCS --> 0.002 square meters
In this case the Average RCS which is what we simply and usually know as RCS for the F-35 would be around and close to 0.0014 square meters (F-35 RCS based on official information).


Please note that the values and calculations above are once again guessed values and simplistic calculations (a single average calculation between the 3 main aspects of an aircraft) but the purpose of this is to show that's it's clearly possible for an aircraft (F-35) to have a smaller RCS in the frontal aspect compared to another (B-2) but at the same time this same aircraft (F-35) to have an average RCS (or simply RCS) higher than the other aircraft (B-2).
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/18/16 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Do not forget the important note on the chart.

NO LOW FREQUENCY SUPRESSION

With low frequency radar signal supression, the effect of VHF +10dBsm might be negated.

Note that the B-2A is equipped with a Northrop Grumman AN/ZSR-63 defensive avionics suite, and its function was never described in public.



Indeed and also notice that applies the same (actually even more effectively) to the F-35.

The F-35 defensive suite (such as the AN/ASQ-239) working together with the AESA radar (AN/APG-81) gives the F-35 a standoff jamming capability similar to the dedicated airborne jamming platforms such as the EA-18 Growler.
The F-35 defensive suite can also geo-locate radar sources.

Here:

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system

http://www.baesystems.com/en-us/download-en-us/20160718215911/1434583878736.pdf

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/electronicwarfare
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/18/16 07:00 PM

Guys, those sneaky russians hacket that "SteaLTH":






Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
My guess would be:
biggrin




This interpretation is closer to what Russians claim than my 1 DBSM per unit guess.

The very stealthy tacit blue would then have -35 DBSM at X-band and ~-13 DBSM at VHF band (delta of 22 DBSM) in other words, 0,0003m˛ vs 0,05m˛ RCS.

I wonder if this ~+22 DBSM VHF-band effect of this interpretation of the US document scale would proportionally apply to a -30DBSM F-35 class target, bringing it down to -8 DBSM or 0,16m˛.


I would also like to know at what range the Nebo-M could detect a 0,05 VHF-band tacit blue if its detection range against a 1m˛ target is 510km.

Whats more: The 92N6E X-band engagement radar of the S-400 has a range of 185km against a 0,4m˛ target. At no point its able to illuminate a target at 380km which is the claimed max. range of the S-400. So either the new long range 40N6 missile of the S-400 is equipped with a ARH seeker or they use some sort of trick to do it. It should be possible that the 92N6E would just illuminate the space in which the search radar have spotted something and guide the missile via data link towards it. Then in terminal phase the 40N6 would at one (late) point pick up the reflections and switch from data-link/command guidance to SARH, while the 92N6E radar is still out of range and cant track the target.

I think jamming to further reduce the detection range of enemy radars is a last ditch measure for stealth aircraft, used only if their location is compromised and emitter silence can be brocken. In a modern IADS environment and emitting jamming could lead to detection by passive systems or enable a ordinary S-300 missile to switch to HOJ for engagement.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 12:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Patarames
The very stealthy tacit blue would then have -35 DBSM at X-band and ~-13 DBSM at VHF band (delta of 22 DBSM) in other words, 0,0003m˛ vs 0,05m˛ RCS.

I wonder if this ~+22 DBSM VHF-band effect of this interpretation of the US document scale would proportionally apply to a -30DBSM F-35 class target, bringing it down to -8 DBSM or 0,16m˛.


More than 20 years have passed since Tacit Blue's first flight (1982) and the F-35 first flight (2006) so it's safe to assume that Stealth technology evolved a LOT since then (early 1980's).

In the end, while VHF and UHF radars in theory emits more powerful radio waves than for example X-Band radars granting them a slight improvement on detection range against stealth aircraft they still emit radio waves which can be deflected and/or absorbed (like the radio waves of a X-band radar).

What I mean is that I doubt that the F-35 RCS (the most modern stealth aircraft in the world) against a Nebo-M radar would be in the order of 0.16m˛ as you claim.


Originally Posted By: Patarames

I think jamming to further reduce the detection range of enemy radars is a last ditch measure for stealth aircraft, used only if their location is compromised and emitter silence can be brocken. In a modern IADS environment and emitting jamming could lead to detection by passive systems or enable a ordinary S-300 missile to switch to HOJ for engagement.


I believe that here you're confusing self-defence jamming such as is provided with pods/jammers like the ALQ-184 with dedicated Electronic Warfare Jamming that aircraft like the EA-18G Growler and of course the F-35 can do.

A traditional self-defence jamming that is found in many/most modern combat aircraft basically create a "noise cloud" around the aircraft which means that while it will be much harder to lock an aircraft while using its own self-defence jammer it will be easier to detect this same aircraft or more precisely to detect the "noise cloud" its jammer created.
This is what you described.

However, the F-35 as well as dedicated EW aircraft (like the EA-18G) can directly jam the radar source, so what you have in this case is basically a beam of noise directly pointed towards the radar source which will directly degrade the ability of this radar to detect anything at longer distances. Resuming this kind of jamming won't or shouldn't appear on the radar scope since this kind of jamming is directly degrading the radar detection ability.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Patarames
This interpretation is closer to what Russians claim than my 1 DBSM per unit guess.
The very stealthy tacit blue would then have -35 DBSM at X-band and ~-13 DBSM at VHF band (delta of 22 DBSM) in other words, 0,0003m˛ vs 0,05m˛ RCS.

I wonder if this ~+22 DBSM VHF-band effect of this interpretation of the US document scale would proportionally apply to a -30DBSM F-35 class target, bringing it down to -8 DBSM or 0,16m˛.


On this one, I would tend to agree with ricnunes.
Stealth technology is improving over the time.
Tacit Blue +20dBsm VHF/X-band
B-2 +10dBsm VHF/X-band (without active suppression), with active suppression it might be +0dBsm
F-35 is much newer, so my guess would be +0dBsm (without active suppression)

Originally Posted By: Patarames
Whats more: The 92N6E X-band engagement radar of the S-400 has a range of 185km against a 0,4m˛ target. At no point its able to illuminate a target at 380km which is the claimed max. range of the S-400. So either the new long range 40N6 missile of the S-400 is equipped with a ARH seeker or they use some sort of trick to do it. It should be possible that the 92N6E would just illuminate the space in which the search radar have spotted something and guide the missile via data link towards it. Then in terminal phase the 40N6 would at one (late) point pick up the reflections and switch from data-link/command guidance to SARH, while the 92N6E radar is still out of range and cant track the target.


Idea is that Nebo-M detects the F-35 at 100km, and the S-400 battery engages it with the active guidance 9M96D missile (120km range), where the S-400 MFR just sends MCG based on the Nebo-M measurements.

Probably it is by no accident, that the SDB range is currently extended...
Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 04:12 PM

@ricnunes

I think after the experiences of Northrop with the XST program by the time of Tacit blue they had mastered their methods for geometrical stealth, especially because the Tacit blue traded most of its aerodynamics for stealth and was a tech demonstrator. We can be quite confident that the changes until today were rather small as the law of physics stay the same, today a Tacit blue would probably just have better flying characteristics. If overall dimensions would significantly grow to B2 size, we could expect a great enhancement of geometric stealth performance in VHF band. The threat situation back then was also not much different with huge numbers of metric P-18/12 available to the Soviets, so the Tacit blue design was optimized for VHF band stealth performance.
The changes should be foundin RAM and RAS and this mainly in x-band where the wavelengths are within the size of the RAM layers and RAS. In metric wave the tacit blue is a good RCS representer and in this case, after 35 years we are lucky to have declassified documents available, we might lack the scale but Hpasp's interpretation makes much sense at this point.

You doubt my value of 0,16m˛ for the F-35, understandable because we lack the scale for those declassified US origin charts, fair enough. Hpasp once stated that he believes that the difference of X-band to VHF is in the order of 10 DBSM. I extrapolated 22 DBSM with his scale interpretation (which sounds credible) of this declassified US chart:


If we would make the simplification of proportional decreasing the 22 DBSM X-band/VHF delta effect of the tacit blue from the 30 DBSM of the F-35 we would get that 0,16m˛ RCS as result, all assuming that our scale interpretation and the simplification of proportional DBSM decrease are right.
If this interpretation based on this US documents would be right, a Nebo-M would detect a 0,16m˛ RCS (in VHF band) F-35 at a distance of 320km.

As for jamming
I'm aware of dedicated jamming by systems such as the Growler but I question it in this debate where systems such as the S-300 and -400 could target those aircrafts at extended ranges if used in HOJ mode.
But this topic lead me to research a little on VHF band radars performance in jamming environment. I came across this website of a Belarus upgrade program for the P-18 with quite much information and RCS-range values.

http://www.kbradar.by/en/products/radiol...ooruzheniya/99/

I found the discrimination of RCS-range for the P-18 particularity interesting, the value for a F-14 is 175km. Assuming that they used a RCS value of ~8m˛ and that the Serbian SA-3 site detected the F-117 at ~28km, a calculated a RCS of 0,005m˛ for the F-117 in VHF band. Also interesting is the performance under heavy dedicated jamming at 500km distance. Giving the huge degradation for the original analogue system I think we can assume that the range performance of the P-18 was also degraded to some extend. Hence that engagement which suggests a 10 DBSM difference for X-band to VHF-band could be the result of jamming and the true difference could be in the order of 20 DBSM interpreted and extrapolated from those declassified Tacit blue documents.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 05:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


On this one, I would tend to agree with ricnunes.
Stealth technology is improving over the time.
Tacit Blue +20dBsm VHF/X-band
B-2 +10dBsm VHF/X-band (without active suppression), with active suppression it might be +0dBsm
F-35 is much newer, so my guess would be +0dBsm (without active suppression)


Thanks Hpasp.


Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Idea is that Nebo-M detects the F-35 at 100km, and the S-400 battery engages it with the active guidance 9M96D missile (120km range), where the S-400 MFR just sends MCG based on the Nebo-M measurements.

Probably it is by no accident, that the SDB range is currently extended...


By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?

For example and from what I read the target precision for the P-18 radar is around 1km - I understand this as a target detected by a P-18 radar being within the radius of 1Km from the point (blip) indicated on the radar scope, right?
Probably such low precision which affects all VHF radars shouldn't affect much missiles with radar active guidance (like the 9M96D) since such missiles seekers should have a range of around 10 miles (in fact this should be around the maximum range of the AMRAAM missile radar seeker) which could offset any lack of precision with VHF radar such as the Nebo-M therefore this question is about my personal curiosity about the Nebo-M capabilities.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 05:45 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?


Am I sharing information that nobody reads?
sigh
HERE

Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min

More than enough for MCG.

Be aware, that Nebo-M is the world first mobile AESA metric waveband phase modulated radar.
Being able to direct metric wavelength energy into an AESA phase modulated agile (narrow) pencil beam cause unprecedented acquisition range and measurement precision.

We can say, that till the US spent on the development of F-35, Russia spent on Nebo-M.


Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Patarames
@ricnunes

I think after the experiences of Northrop with the XST program by the time of Tacit blue they had mastered their methods for geometrical stealth, especially because the Tacit blue traded most of its aerodynamics for stealth and was a tech demonstrator. We can be quite confident that the changes until today were rather small as the law of physics stay the same, today a Tacit blue would probably just have better flying characteristics. If overall dimensions would significantly grow to B2 size, we could expect a great enhancement of geometric stealth performance in VHF band. The threat situation back then was also not much different with huge numbers of metric P-18/12 available to the Soviets, so the Tacit blue design was optimized for VHF band stealth performance.
The changes should be foundin RAM and RAS and this mainly in x-band where the wavelengths are within the size of the RAM layers and RAS. In metric wave the tacit blue is a good RCS representer and in this case, after 35 years we are lucky to have declassified documents available, we might lack the scale but Hpasp's interpretation makes much sense at this point.



Well here you're assuming that Stealth is limited to the laws of physics but for some odd reason that radars, namely VHF radars are not.

I can tell you that Stealth as evolved a LOT. Actually I have a nice article that came with a military aircraft magazine ("Combat Aircraft" if I'm not mistaken) which covered pretty much the history of Stealth (or Stealth aircraft). If I can find the article I'll post it here.
What I can tell you (and trying the resume the best I can) is that the aerodynamics limitations on early aircraft (like Tacit Blue) don't have anything to do with any trade or compromise between Stealth and Aerodynamics but instead because of computer power limitations of that era (remember this was the early 1980's) and as such computers were very limited in doing extremely complex calculation such as calculating/designing an airframe that could have excellent aerodynamics and very low RCS at the same time.

For example, why do you think that the F-117A surface is composed by flat panels (it almost looks like a shaped diamond) instead of more rounded shapes found on the F-22 and F-35?
The answer is just above: Computer power or more precise the lack of it.
Since in the late 1970's computer power was very limited (as it was in the 1980's specially in the early 1980's) it was much easier for a computer to design any shape like a stealth aircraft using flat surfaces rather than by using rounded ones.
The same principle applies to the Tacit Blue which while not having a surface composed of flat panels like the F-117A it was nevertheless a very "straight-line" design and thus easy to be generated on a computer.

Later we had the B-2 which came up in the later part of the 1980's. The B-2 came up because of a combination of two factors:
- The invention of Fly-By-Wire (FBW) flight control systems in the late 1970's made possible that previously uncontrollable or hardly controllable aircraft design (like the "flying wing" design of the B-2) were now controllable.
- The "flying wing" is also a very straightforward design to be calculated on a computer (even on a more limited one) while at the same time it was found rather by accident in the 1950's (with the Northrop YB-49) that a "flying wing" design displayed a very low RCS.
So the B-2 came up.

So, it was only the in the early 1990's that computers started to have enough processing power to allow the design of aircraft that were both excellent aerodynamically and with very low RCS, therefore it was with no surprise that very low RCS and "conventional looking aircraft designs" like the F-22 and the JSF (later F-35) only came up in the 1990's.

I hope I haven't bother you with the "history of Stealth" but this is to prove that there's NO either you have a "more stealth but less aerodynamic" aircraft OR "less stealth but more aerodynamic" aircraft! You can actually have both: ""more stealth AND more aerodynamic" but you need a VERY powerful computer to design such aircraft, a reality which again was only possible starting from the 1990's.

And as such, Hpasp's prediction that the Nebo-M could detect a F-35 at a maximum range of 100km looks acceptable and perhaps even a little bit optimistic but again Hpasp mentioned that in this scenario the F-35 wouldn't be using its EW capabilities which makes it IMO quite believable.

So there's absolutely no way that a Nebo-M would be able to detect a F-35 at a range of 320Km, that would be a bet that I would easily put lots of my own money!


Originally Posted By: Patarames

As for jamming
I'm aware of dedicated jamming by systems such as the Growler but I question it in this debate where systems such as the S-300 and -400 could target those aircrafts at extended ranges if used in HOJ mode.
But this topic lead me to research a little on VHF band radars performance in jamming environment. I came across this website of a Belarus upgrade program for the P-18 with quite much information and RCS-range values.

http://www.kbradar.by/en/products/radiol...ooruzheniya/99/

I found the discrimination of RCS-range for the P-18 particularity interesting, the value for a F-14 is 175km. Assuming that they used a RCS value of ~8m˛ and that the Serbian SA-3 site detected the F-117 at ~28km, a calculated a RCS of 0,005m˛ for the F-117 in VHF band. Also interesting is the performance under heavy dedicated jamming at 500km distance. Giving the huge degradation for the original analogue system I think we can assume that the range performance of the P-18 was also degraded to some extend. Hence that engagement which suggests a 10 DBSM difference for X-band to VHF-band could be the result of jamming and the true difference could be in the order of 20 DBSM interpreted and extrapolated from those declassified Tacit blue documents.



HOJ against a "standoff jammer" like the EA-18G or the F-35 wouldn't likely work and why?
Because dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft systems will know what is the frequency of the emitting radar, will geo-locate those radar emitters and will jam those radars on their own frequencies.
That's why only AESA radars (like the APG-81 found on the F-35) can be used as a standoff jammer antenna and why? Because AESA radars are composed by several programmable T-R modules which means that some or even all of these modules can be reprogrammed to emit on another frequency "on the fly". Or resuming, AESA radars can change their emitting frequencies while other radars such as Mechanically Steered radars and PESA radars cannot.
Actually the radar and sensor package of the F-35 was already capable of locating and jamming the F-22 Raptor's radars. Here:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-stealth-aircraft-program-will-face-advanced-defenses

So if the F-35 can perform EW against the F-22 radar, imagine what it will do to against those Nebo-M radars and even the S-400 radars!


What I mean with all this is that since the jamming is done on the emitting frequency of the radar then the practical effect on the radar (being jammed) is that nothing will be detected by this radar (including the jamming signal) - It is as if there was nothing in area or space where the jamming is coming. This is actually kind of an alternate way of Stealth. Look here how it works:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/this-aircraft-is-a-marvel-of-electronic-warfare/38017


That's only a small part of an episode of a TV series (Air Warriors) but if you can, watch the full episode it's quite interesting. Nevertheless the part that you can watch above pretty much explain what I've posted about this subject.


Regarding that F-117 shot down over Serbia, it's well known that the F-117 didn't have any EW support (in this case didn't have any EA-6 Prowler support) so your F-117 RCS against a VHF radar (P-18 in this case) is in a scenario without any EW noise/support.
And so, if the F-117 has an RCS against the VHF band of 0,005m˛ (a value that you came up with and which I personally trend to agree on) without any EW or jammer support why would the F-35 RCS be any higher, specially much higher like 0,16m˛?? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
By the way what's the Nebo-M target precision (not sure I'm using the correct term here), especially for a target located at around 100Km?


Am I sharing information that nobody reads?
sigh
HERE

Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min

More than enough for MCG.


Oopps sorry, with the small letters I somehow missed the info banghead



Originally Posted By: Hpasp

Be aware, that Nebo-M is the world first mobile AESA metric waveband phase modulated radar


Well "mobile" is a bit of an overstatement! With that massive size (That radar array has the size of a building) I would say that at best it is "semi-mobile" (not much different from a P-18 in terms of mobility). wink
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
So if the F-35 can perform EW against the F-22 radar, imagine what it will do to against those Nebo-M radars and even the S-400 radars!


Guys!
Please calm down!
This is a forum for a Cool Headed SAM missile-man.

There is no Jamming Black Magic exist.
Each jamming type (I tried to educate you) can be used against a specific radar system, and can degrade its operation.
A Jamming effective against an F-22, would do NOTHING against a Nebo-M (metric AESA land-based acquisition radar).

Next SAMSIM version will include some jamming used in the last century...
biggrin
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Each jamming type (I tried to educate you) can be used against a specific system, and can degrade its operation.
A Jamming effective against an F-22, would do NOTHING against a Nebo-M (metric AESA land-based acquisition radar).



You're talking about SAM Simulator and not about real life, right?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:54 PM

Name of the topic is: SAM SIMULATOR

We can discuss new developments on the field, and Im ready to share information I got.

Just please avoid flame wars here.
Best way is to support each of your statements with sources. (I try to excercise)
thumbsup
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Name of the topic is: SAM SIMULATOR

We can discuss new developments on the field, and Im ready to share information I got.

Just please avoid flame wars here.
Best way is to support each of your statements with sources. (I try to excercise)
thumbsup



Please don't get me wrong, I'm not starting a flame war here.
Actually I think that my discussion here with Patarames and both our arguments (mine and Patarames) were very civilized and friendly (albeit a bit on the opposing side). I believe that Patarames will agree with me on this one.

If I said something that may have been on the "rough" side I apologize (but I don't think I did) wink
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 07:04 PM

Jamming against a networked phase modulated radar is tough job.



Already during the 80's, Patriot batteries could simply triangulate their jamming sources.
Russians reached this level of automation only now, with the S-400...
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 07:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Jamming against a networked phase modulated radar is tough job.



Already during the 80's, Patriot batteries could simply triangulate their jamming sources.
Russians reached this level of automation only now, with the S-400...



Yes, indeed.

In warfare there's no "magic bullets" that's for sure wink


Looking at your diagram that doesn't look like a "narrowbeam" and "narrowband" jamming associated with the F-35 (and also F-22) jamming capability using its own AESA radar as an antenna (link below - last paragraph) or am I reading the diagram in the wrong way?

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/
Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 08:01 PM

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.

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.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/19/16 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min



Cool,but is this for the VHF part of the complex?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 12:18 AM

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
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: piston79
Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Range: 90m
Azimuth: 12min
Elevation: 10min



Cool,but is this for the VHF part of the complex?



That's a very good question which I would like to know the answer as well.

By reading the brochure posted by Hpasp we can see that the system is composed by 3 different radar systems - A VHF radar, a L-Band (decimetric band) radar and finally a S-Band (centimetric band) radar.

Is it possible that the 90 (ninety) meter target precision comes from the S-Band radar instead from the VHF radar?

If this is the case it's likely that the S-Band radar detection range for a 1 square meter target isn't 510km but quite lower, right?


Anyway even if the VHF radar precision is much lower lets say the similar as the P-18 or around 900 (nine hundred) meters or lower than I believe this should still be enough to guide an active-radar guided missile towards the vicinity of the target, right?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 04:26 PM

Comparing P-18 capabilities to Nebo-M; an analogue mechanically scanned antenna system to a fully digital computerized AESA.
I cannot emphasize enough how big step is this, like a move from F-86 to F-35?
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
Comparing P-18 capabilities to Nebo-M; an analogue mechanically scanned antenna system to a fully digital computerized AESA.
I cannot emphasize enough how big step is this, like a move from F-86 to F-35?


No, no, I'm not comparing both! I guess you misunderstood my post. I have no doubts that the Nebo-M is much more advanced than the P-18.

However VHF radars which works on the metric band will always have limitations compared to centimetric band radars (like X or S bands) and if I'm not mistaken one of such limitations is indeed the targeting precision, is this correct?

I'm also not implying that the Nebo-M precision is around 900m which is the same as the P-18. What I say or more precisely what asked was if that even a radar with a precision of 900m could be used to cue an active radar guided missile?

Obviously I believe that the targeting precision of the Nebo-M radar should be quite better than the P-18 (or resuming considerably lower than 900m) but piston79 really posted a very good question:
- Is the precision of 90 (ninety) meters the targeting precision of the VHF radar from the 55zh6ME system that you posted?
- Or instead it's from one of the other two radars (like the S-band radar for example)?

That system, the 55zh6ME according to the brochure that you posted uses three different radars (VHF, L-Band and S-Band) and the specs are about the entire system so isn't it possible that the 90 (ninety) meter targeting precision comes from the S-Band radar of the system instead of the VHF radar of the same 55zh6ME system?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 05:28 PM

Nebo-M is consisted of 3 radars:

- 64L6
- modification of 59N-6e
- modification of 1L119

Here what APA said about 59N-6E:



Here 64L6:

Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 06:17 PM

Interesting info, thanks for sharing it piston79.

Digging a bit more on the subject and considering that the VHF radar from the Nebo-M system is an evolution/modification of the 1L119 VHF radar I found the following about the "predecessor" variant of the Nebo-M VHF radar, the 1L119 "Nebo-SVU" VHF radar system:




This info can be found here:
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1340


And considering that the targeting precision of the 1L119 VHF radar is 100 meters, it seems that the 90 meter precision data can indeed come from the VHF radar of the Nebo-M system.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 06:34 PM

I would always handle Carlo Kopp's estimations with a grain of salt.
Beside that he written a nice page about SAMSIM .
thumbsup

So the reality is...
biggrin


Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp
I would always handle Carlo Kopp's estimations with a grain of salt.
Beside that he written a nice page about SAMSIM .
thumbsup



Yes, I fully agree with you about Carlo Kopp that's for sure wink


But I didn't take my data about the Nebo-SVU from his data, if you notice I took the data from here:

http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/1219/1241/1340

Which looks like an official page from Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of these systems.


It's curious that the data that I gathered is indeed different than yours.

Thanks for the data Hpasp! Your data certainly look more reliable (and/or believable) to me. thumbsup


Oh, so Carlo Kopp wrote something about SAM Simulator, eh? It's about time he writes anything good biggrin
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 07:21 PM

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
Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 08:50 PM

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.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 10:31 PM

@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
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/20/16 10:35 PM

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
Posted By: Nikoteer

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/21/16 05:32 PM

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?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/21/16 10:17 PM

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...

Posted By: Nikoteer

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/22/16 04:50 PM

Alright, thank you. smile
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/26/16 01:34 PM

"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
Posted By: farokh

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/28/16 11:19 AM

Thats too sad for me
Ive to access to our c300 at all frown
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 12/28/16 08:57 PM

S-300PMU/PMU1/PMU2/V/VM, S-400 marketing materials...
http://www.mediafire.com/file/jyu6brq7ha4o23w/S-300_Marketing_Material.rar

Happy Holidays,
thumbsup
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/01/17 12:47 PM

Iranian S-300PMU2



Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/06/17 11:23 AM

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.

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/06/17 01:10 PM

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.
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/07/17 12:12 PM

Very interesting!
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/07/17 07:36 PM

I am quite shocked with the low amount of systems produced.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/08/17 01:51 PM

Very interesting info Hpasp and again thanks for sharing! thumbsup
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/08/17 04:56 PM

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
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/08/17 06:34 PM

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.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/09/17 10:47 AM

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.
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/10/17 08:05 AM

By the way, I was talking just about S-300 numbers.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/10/17 06:18 PM

S-350 Vityaz, planned successor of the S-300PS.


Posted By: Vaderini

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/10/17 10:10 PM

Amazing info as always :o

If you still need info on the early Mim-104, I can ask around the defence department and see what i can do
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/11/17 10:57 AM

TM 9-1430-600-20-2 Engagement Control Station second volume is available on Google Books.

https://books.google.hu/books?id=LDgYAAAAYAAJ&pg

The first volume would be a great help.
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300PS/PMU (SA-10B Grumble) - 01/11/17 08:11 PM

5th S-400 regiment is fielded around Moscow...

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/13/17 05:30 PM

S-300 history-III

After a ten years break, Chinese funding made the reopen of S-300 production line possible.
In 2004 China ordered 16 batteries of S-300PMU2 Favorit (SA-20B) in two batches, for a total of $1,980 million.
Algeria paid $500 million for four systems, probably these were originally produced for Iran, but delivery was banned due to sanctions.
The modernized plant delivered the first batch of 20 export versions between 2007 and 2009.

The 6 channel system had an effective range of 200km using the 48N6E2 missiles.

In 2011, 2 systems were delivered to Azerbaijan for $300 million. They are based East and North of Baku.
From 2016, the previously suspended Iranian delivery is also started, worth of $800 million.




From 2015, upgrades of the Russian S-300PM to S-300PM2 Favorit-S (SA-20B) system using the 200km ranged 48N6D missile is also started.

Beside producing the export Favorits, the first two pieces of S-400 Triumph (SA-21) were delivered in 2007, and 2009 to the Russian PVO.
The 12 channel system had an effective range of 250km using the 48N6DM missiles.
After the export Favorit delivery completed, production of the Triumph was accelerated.
According to the plans, till 2020 56 systems will be delivered, replacing all S-300PT versions.



As of 2016, 26 S-400 are fielded.

Expected in 2017, the 40N6 missiles becomes available, with 380km range, and 4 more systems are fielded, 2 for Moscow (one already arrived), and 2 for the Northern Fleet (most probably at Severodinsk).

Export is expected to start after 2020, China is negotiating 6 systems for $3,000 million.
India also interested to buy 5 systems for $2,500 million.

Next episode will describe current PVO situation, and plans for replacing the elderly S-300PS systems.
Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/13/17 08:22 PM

Great concentrated information Hpasp.

Where in this history would Armenian and Azerbaijani S-300s appear? As far as I know Armenia had a older, apparently S-300PS system and recently got a S-300PMU1 or -2. This was apparently to get on pair with Azerbaijan who got at least one brand new S-300PMU2. Little note, given the good relations between Azerbaijan and Israel its possible that they had the chance to take a look at or even train again the S-300PMU2 and pass the info to the US and hence NATO. However I have doubts whether Russian intel and influence on Azerbaijan would allow this to happen.

A few more details: Apparently East German air defense troops were not aware of a operational S-300 there as far as I know. Either its was still packed before being send back to the Soviet Union or some secretive unit operated it in its short presence there.

Iranian S-300PMU2's use the command post shown in your S-400 illustration. Given that Russians said that original 2007 were reconfigured and sold to other costumers and the 2016 batch is said to be newly produced, could the Iranian PMU2 configuration be different to the standard S-300PMU2?
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/13/17 09:03 PM

A few more details: Apparently East German air defense troops were not aware of a operational S-300 there as far as I know. Either its was still packed before being send back to the Soviet Union or some secretive unit operated it in its short presence there.

I knew it otherwise.
They had the standard curricula, than live shooting at Ashuluk.
The systems arrived and were temporary based at az S-200 site, till their fixed firing position was built. (visible on Google Earth)

They had 3 wartime firing position selected at the northern seashore.

Iranian S-300PMU2's use the command post shown in your S-400 illustration.

Could you post a picture of it?


Posted By: Patarames

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/14/17 05:03 PM

So East German S-300 went operational with East German troops for a sort period of time (months) according to your sources.

Here is the Iranian S-300 command post which is not a traditional S-300PMU2 component. I wonder whether Iran requested a modified -PMU2 variant from the Russians after the possibility that Azerbaijani S-300PMU2 could be compromised to Israel.

http://defence.pk/attachments/636100570130544712_b-jpg.337663/
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/14/17 05:26 PM

As the 54K6 was last produced 8 years ago, I would rather assume that only the newer 55K6 were in production, so both Azerbaijan and Iran received it. Anyhow, the main detection component of the command post is the RLO, and both Azerbaijan and Iran received the 64N6E2.

But thanks for your valuable observations, I corrected the text and the drawing.



Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/17/17 01:03 PM

Photos of S-400 in Crimea

http://black-drago.livejournal.com/734611.html
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/20/17 06:14 PM

So many beautiful videos are released, that Im almost creating an S-400 simulator.
grrr
(just a joke)

Beautifully visible the 12 target channel operating buttons, left of the screen.
Channel 3 and 5 is tracking a target.
Channel 5 is ready for launch. (green button)



PUSK on channel 5!

Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/21/17 07:16 AM

75 years of Avangard Factory

http://altyn73.livejournal.com/1082115.html
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/22/17 09:47 AM

S-300 History-IV

As of today, the Russian Air Defense is based on the S-300 family (26 S-400, 24 S-300PM, 31 S-300PS, 4 S-300PT, few S-300V):



Major cities
Moscow; 9 S-400, 16 S-300PM, S-300V
Leningrad; 4 S-300PM, 8 S-300PS

Pacific Fleet
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky; 3 S-400
Vladivostok; 2 S-400, S-300V
Nakhodka; 2 S-400

Northern Fleet
Murmansk; 2 S-400
Severomorsk; 4 S-300PT

Black Sea Fleet
Novorossiysk; 1 S-400
Feodosiya (Crimea); 1 S-400
Sevastopol (Crimea); 1 S-400 (planned)

Airforce Bases
Olenegorsk; 2 S-300PM
Engels; 2 S-300PS
Hmeymim (Syria); 1 S-400

Territories
Kaliningrad; 2 S-400, 4 S-300PS
Sokhumi, Abkhazia; 2 S-300PS
Gyumri, Armenia; S-300V

Important Industrial cities
Novosibirsk (Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association: Su-34); 2 S-400
Rostov (Rosvertol: Mi-35, Mi-28, Mi-26); 2 S-300PM
Komsomolsk-on-Amur (Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association: Su-27SM/SKM, Su-33, Su-27KUB, PAK-FA); 3 S-300PS
Yekaterinburg (VSMPO titanium plant); 2 S-300PS
Samara (Kuznetsov Design Bureau, Progress Rocket Space Centre); 2 S-300PS
Voronezh (Voronezh Aircraft Production Association: Il-148); 2 S-300PS
Khabarovsk; 2 S-300PS
Irkutsk (Irkut Corporation: Su-30); 2 S-300PS
Nazarovo (RUSAL aluminium factory); 2 S-300PS



Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/22/17 06:51 PM

"S-400 AD missiles being loaded into containers. Seems there are not many pics of the procedure v @tvcrussia"

https://twitter.com/rss_40/status/822909458938531840
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/26/17 05:05 PM

Can you tell from these pics, the azimuth beam-width of the S-400 system?
just use some math winkngrin



Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 02/21/17 04:48 PM

Best information so far about the V-500 missile of the S-300PT/PS/PMU systems.
thumbsup

Download material from the bottom of this page...
http://historykpvo-2.ucoz.ru/index/0-13

... direct link:
https://yadi.sk/i/yKVPTK9PscdYx






Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 02/22/17 09:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Hpasp


Click to reveal..






Maybe with a kill zone rings would be better?
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 03/02/17 04:15 PM




Farokh must be proud... wink
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 03/11/17 02:14 PM

S-300PMU2 Iranian practice...

http://inteloniran.blogspot.hu/2017/03/damavand-air-defense-exercise-s-300-test.html


Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 04/19/17 05:13 PM

Three Iranian S-300PMU2 battery at the same place...
rolleyes

[Linked Image]
Posted By: ascromis

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 04/23/17 11:59 AM

Exercise "Blue Shield 2017" in western China, in the Gobi desert.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 05/10/17 01:32 PM

http://s400.tass.ru/razvertyvanie-sistemy/


Just scroll down...
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 05/10/17 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hpasp
Three Iranian S-300PMU2 battery at the same place...
rolleyes

[Linked Image]


LoL,

The perfect shot for an AGM-154A (JSOW - BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb submunitions variant).

biggrin
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 05/10/17 06:11 PM

Iran received 2x2 S-300PMU2 battery for more than half thousand million dollar.

2016 June exS-200 Vega site East of Teheran
[Linked Image]

2016 July, S-200 removed, construction is ongoing
[Linked Image]

2016 August, 2 S-300PMU2 batteries arrived (1 RLO, 2 RPN, 10 PU)
[Linked Image]

2016 November, VVOs arrived; 1 RLO, 2 VVO, 2 RPN, 12 PU
[Linked Image]

2017 January, 1 RLO, 3 VVO, 3 RPN, more than 20 PU
[Linked Image]

Other assets are here...
[Linked Image]

At the east, one more battery; 1 RPN, 4 PU
[Linked Image]

At the south, one RLO
[Linked Image]

Posted By: ricnunes

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 05/11/17 01:15 PM

WoW, excellent info there Hpasp, thanks for sharing. thumbsup
Posted By: Hpasp

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 06/22/17 04:56 PM

5V55R missile destruction zone, and flight path/time.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: TwojaStaraPL

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 07/15/17 11:02 PM

Hpasp, in SAMSim version 0.930+ there is logo of S-300PS under construction, is this April fools joke or .... are we getting full-auto engagement mode ? :o ... and will there will be manual for that beast ?
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 07/18/17 09:25 AM

Iran deploys S-300 to Bushehr

http://www.janes.com/article/72263/iran-deploys-s-300-to-bushehr
https://twitter.com/JeremyBinnie/status/886876288832733185
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 10/20/17 06:42 PM

"Azerbaijan’s “Favorit”: In Search of the Caspian Country’s SA-20s"

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2017/10/20/azerbaijan-favorite-sa20s/
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 04/15/18 07:41 PM

Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 10/21/18 06:06 PM

just a video.... cannot say which S-300 mod is this,,,

Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 10/22/18 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by piston79
just a video.... cannot say which S-300 mod is this,,,



Nice! Especially the interior part.
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/05/19 10:10 PM

400...

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/27/19 05:01 PM

piston79: nice thumbsup
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 03/16/19 09:54 PM

A look at 5N64S

https://twitter.com/halmiso1/status/1106871484205723648
Posted By: Alien_MasterMynd

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 04/12/19 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Muggs

jawdrop thumbsup
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 09/03/19 03:04 PM

"for the first time observed, the recently arrived from Russia to Turkey S400 is in operational mode and deployed in Ankara."

https://twitter.com/ImageSatIntl/status/1168862820622065666
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 09/03/19 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Muggs
"for the first time observed, the recently arrived from Russia to Turkey S400 is in operational mode and deployed in Ankara."

https://twitter.com/ImageSatIntl/status/1168862820622065666



Thanks!!!!
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 01/31/20 03:11 PM

From "The Caffeinated Analyst" on Facebook;

Quote
In July, Turkey took delivery of its first S-400E components at MĎ‹rted airbase near Ankara. Recent Maxar imagery made available in Google Earth shows off the components in pretty good detail.

Image 1 shows some the first components delivered in July 2019. The long objects are 40V6 series mast assemblies for the radar antennas.

Image 2 shows the same ramp area in October 2019. There are many more components visible, and the 96L6E target acquisition radar is erected and connected to power vans suggesting it was operating at some level.

Image 3 shows another ramp area to the northeast. The 91N6E battle management radar is erected and connected to power vans.

Image 4 shows the firing battery elements parked on a taxiway. The 92N6E engagement radar is, as the others, erected and connected to the all-important power vans. There are also twelve TELs.

What's interesting is that there are a mix of TEL types. Four of them are towed 5P85TE3 TELs, while the remaining eight are self-propelled 51P6E TELs, making Turkey the first export customer for the new MZKT chassis based mobile TEL. One possibility is that the towed TELs will be used for the 40N6E.


https://www.facebook.com/caffeinatedanalyst/posts/2548088035511113
Posted By: Muggs

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 02/08/20 09:53 PM

https://youtu.be/93X31n0AIIM?t=33

Nice view of the operator panels from 33 seconds
Posted By: piston79

Re: S-300, S-350, S-400 - 02/24/20 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Muggs
https://youtu.be/93X31n0AIIM?t=33

Nice view of the operator panels from 33 seconds



© 2020 SimHQ Forums