Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
For the Russians it makes little sense to keep old missiles in service as SAMs.
Systems like SA-5 and SA-2 and SA-1 and SA-4 are obsolete and not really worth upgrading.
SA-3 would be useful mainly because over a huge flat plain a missile that can target relatively low flying threats could be useful against cruise missile targets where numbers are useful.
If using for experiments... for example the SA-5 has had a scramjet engine mounted on its nose for use in scramjet development, while the hundreds of thousands of SA-1 missiles produced are still being used to simulate air targets... since the 1970s they have used about 13,000 of them but there are still enormous numbers of obsolete missiles still available for use with fairly minor modifications.
the SA-8 is a very capable portable drone launcher system as an example.
For a less capable country likely to see less capable threats then some older systems might be viable with a few upgrades, but really with systems like Pantsir and TOR that have expensive vehicles but cheap missiles it really does not make any sense to use even upgraded old model SAMs.
Of course having said that India is using upgraded SA-6 missiles in its defence... in many ways it is a mini SA-4 in that it moves the four large external solid rocket motors into the core of the missile where after rocket burnout the core becomes a ramjet motor which powers the missile to its target.
Obviously the ramjet motor on the SA-6 is much smaller than on the SA-4.
Very simply if you have SA-2 and SA-3 in service then an upgrade to improve mobility as well as ECCM performance and indeed increasing the director channels so multiple targets can be engaged at one time to prevent the system being overwhelmed make a lot of sense, but it would be much cheaper to buy a TOR-M3 and S-350.
The talk about saving money by reusing platforms is a false economy for Russia... the quicker it can get all the obsolete platforms out of service and the new unified platforms (ie armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon) into service the more money they will save.
Obviously however if a 2S1 chassis is still usable then for units that don't operate one of the new families might as well use it...
Pretty soon however when all the new turrets are ready the older chassis will be retired and standardisation and unification will be completed... simplifying logistics and spending and saving a lot of money.
Systems like SA-5 and SA-2 and SA-1 and SA-4 are obsolete and not really worth upgrading.
SA-3 would be useful mainly because over a huge flat plain a missile that can target relatively low flying threats could be useful against cruise missile targets where numbers are useful.
If using for experiments... for example the SA-5 has had a scramjet engine mounted on its nose for use in scramjet development, while the hundreds of thousands of SA-1 missiles produced are still being used to simulate air targets... since the 1970s they have used about 13,000 of them but there are still enormous numbers of obsolete missiles still available for use with fairly minor modifications.
the SA-8 is a very capable portable drone launcher system as an example.
For a less capable country likely to see less capable threats then some older systems might be viable with a few upgrades, but really with systems like Pantsir and TOR that have expensive vehicles but cheap missiles it really does not make any sense to use even upgraded old model SAMs.
Of course having said that India is using upgraded SA-6 missiles in its defence... in many ways it is a mini SA-4 in that it moves the four large external solid rocket motors into the core of the missile where after rocket burnout the core becomes a ramjet motor which powers the missile to its target.
Obviously the ramjet motor on the SA-6 is much smaller than on the SA-4.
Very simply if you have SA-2 and SA-3 in service then an upgrade to improve mobility as well as ECCM performance and indeed increasing the director channels so multiple targets can be engaged at one time to prevent the system being overwhelmed make a lot of sense, but it would be much cheaper to buy a TOR-M3 and S-350.
The talk about saving money by reusing platforms is a false economy for Russia... the quicker it can get all the obsolete platforms out of service and the new unified platforms (ie armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon) into service the more money they will save.
Obviously however if a 2S1 chassis is still usable then for units that don't operate one of the new families might as well use it...
Pretty soon however when all the new turrets are ready the older chassis will be retired and standardisation and unification will be completed... simplifying logistics and spending and saving a lot of money.
