Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Share

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:17 pm

    Still works though. With S-400s displacing S-300PM batteries around Moscow you might see the PMs start to be deployed to replace PS batteries.

    Arrow
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 98
    Points : 98
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Arrow on Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:29 pm

    Near Moscow there are only four battalions of the S-400 system.
    S-300PM is only about 25 battalion? So Russian air defense system is based on the S-300PS. This systems will soon be withdrawn.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:35 pm

    I count 6 S-300PT batteries, 37 S-300PS batteries, and 23 S-300PM batteries. The PMs are deployed around Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Kola peninsula, and a few in Southern Command. PS and PT batteries are everywhere else. The important places have the PMs, which as they get kicked out of Moscow should start replacing PT/PS batteries.

    Also bear in mind that my totals are based on what I can locate, there may be more of these out there in areas uncovered with available imagery.

    Arrow
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 98
    Points : 98
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Arrow on Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:42 pm

    he important places have the PMs, which as they get kicked out of Moscow should start replacing PT/PS batteries.

    So Moscow air defence system will have only a few battalions S-400 ? Now is only fou.
    Production of the S-400 is going very slowly, and this is expensive system

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:25 pm

    Was it the PM or PS that received the recent fleet wide upgrade?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:28 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:Any links regarding this SAGG guidance system? What makes it more complex?

    350KM is great, but wont be better than S-400 when the 40N6 is out in full production.
    seeker aided guidance. semi-active but very resistant to jamming and ecm , because missile receives bounced off signal and sends target coordinates to aiming radar via its datalink. if radar doesnt use bounced off signal from target but only data received from missile its -tvm -or track via missile, if it uses both received signals and compares for a composite picture then its seeker aided guidance.
    no matter how powerful or large radar is missile is much closer to target at the end of engagement so it gets more accurate data about targets position and its not emmiting so enemy doesnt know where it is exactly so it cant jamm it.
    so using sagg if your radar is jammed eg.- the position of target according to aiming radar is not the same as the data received from missile, you can actually know what ECM the enemy is using and automatically use proper ECCM to rectify target data.
    and missile position is always known because it is illuminated too like in radio-command.shorter range missiles will have radar beacons in them.

    That did not help me out one bit. It is better off that you submit a link rather than tell me in your dribble that makes no sense to the English readers. And seeing from your post history already, I can say it is safe not to actually take what you are saying as serious.

    So provide a link please. I have asked you multiple times already in a short period of time, on various subjects, and you fail to provide one. Do me this one favor please, provide a source.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:25 am

    TR1 wrote:Was it the PM or PS that received the recent fleet wide upgrade?

    S-300PM, they were upgraded to Favorit-S standard. Makes sense, the PS models are older and use older missiles with less service life available.

    sepheronix wrote:That did not help me out one bit.

    This is how SAGG works, explained using the S-300PM's acquisition and launch process. I posted this here a while ago in the Russian ARMs thread, this version has a few minor changes.

    ACQUISITION PHASE

    1. Target track data is received by the 30N6. This can come from either a) a 64N6 downlink, b) a 36D6 downlink, c) an EW network downlink, or d) the 30N6 itself acting in its limited search capacity.

    2. Battery personnel look at each other, each raising a single eyebrow, the universally recognized signal for "is this guy serious?"

    3. Once the target enters engagement range, which is determined by target and/or firing doctrine, target position data gets uploaded to a pair of missiles. This is generated by the 30N6, which begins scanning the sky near the target; this can be especially important if you got track data from a 2D source, as you'll need height (the missing "D") to tell the missile which way to point immediately after launch and accurately guide the missile during midcourse. If you've got multiple missile types in your TELs (the S-300P family is all backwards compatible, so you might have 5V55s and 48N6s), the 30N6 will decide what kind of missile to fire based on ECM presence, target type, etc.

    4. The pair of 48N6s are cold-launched, ignite, and head towards the target, briefly inertially guided based on the uploaded target data.

    INITIAL FLIGHT

    5. After stabilization, the 30N6 acquires the missiles and begins tracking, preparing to deliver guidance commands during midcourse. The target is also intermittently tracked. As an aside, radar capability and missile stabilization time are your major drivers for minimum range. Faster systems and better electronics mean you can get this going quicker, giving a smaller minimum range.

    MIDCOURSE PHASE

    6. While in-flight, the 30N6 periodically monitors the target and missile positions, uplinking course corrections to the missiles to keep them going in the right direction. This is simply command guidance. From an EW perspective, this is basically ops normal for the 30N6, and doesn't indicate a launch. However, if the S-300PM battery belongs to someone who does not employ the 30N6 in search mode, or keeps them offline until required to hide them from ELINT snoopers directing SEAD/DEAD strikes, 30N6 emissions can obviously indicate an active engagement. Plus, if your RWR/RHAW gear says "30N6 is online that way, and it's scanned our airspace at least once", you're going to take what precautions you can regardless.

    TERMINAL PHASE

    7. Upon reaching the terminal phase, the seeker in the missile activates. The 30N6 begins painting the target continuously using a narrow beam. At this point you know that you've been fired on, the CW signal from the 30N6 amounting to a "lock on". It's not that your RWR/RHAW gear is ignorant of a "lock on", it's that the SAGG system is delaying true "lock on" until the last possible moment to reduce the target's ability to evade.

    8. The missile basically has a modified SARH seeker, and a set of guidance systems. The missile receives reflected energy from the target, and generates guidance commands. Except that these are not acted upon, and are instead downlinked to the 30N6.

    9. The 30N6, operating in CW mode, generates its own set of guidance commands based on the reflected energy it receives and the position of the missile it is still tracking.

    10. The two sets of guidance commands are compared and used to generate a final set, which is uplinked to the missile for action. The missile then makes the course correction required. Sending the data back and forth might seem like it's making things take longer than it needs to, but the processors in the engagement radar are extremely powerful and the signals are transmitted as EM waves, and therefore travel at light speed anyway.

    11. At endgame, the proximity fuze detonates the warhead. The missile airframe executes a roll prior to detonation to align the directional warhead with the target for maximum effect. At the same time, the second missile (forget about him?) does the same thing. Oh, and the missiles are moving at something close to Mach 6, so the time window from terminal phase initiation to warhead detonation is going to be very, very small. Another point for the well-designed SAM system.

    12. Airplane confetti. Almaz-Antei and Fakel patent the concept of overkill following the second missile detonating.

    13. 30N6 scans the area to ensure the target has been eliminated, this is referred to as shoot-shoot-look: fire two weapons, see if you killed the target.

    TVM differs in steps 8-10. In a simpler TVM system, target position data from the missile seeker is sent to the radar, which uses it to generate guidance commands, sending these back up to the missile. TVM is simpler in that you're using the missile as the radar receiver. Downlink the target data, get guidance commands, kill target.

    The difference with a TVM weapon and a SAGG weapon is that a SAGG weapon will be more complex as it needs to have smarter guidance systems onboard the missile itself. Both will work fine, both will be accurate. SAGG, however, gives you a lot more EW/ECM/etc. protection as you're essentially continuously comparing two viewpoints of the battlespace to get the most accurate picture. Comparing these viewpoints will allow you to filter out a lot of jamming sources.

    So, SAGG is more complicated, but that's a good thing: varying perspectives allow for more efficient flightpaths (more range) and better ECCM characteristics (higher pK). And if you think about it in terms of the target, you aren't sure you've been fired at until step 7.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:03 am

    One of the highly significant aspects of the SAGG guidance method is that it provides high ECCM capability, while at the same time providing for an efficient trajectory-optimized intercept trajectory.

    For such optimized trajectories, a knowledge of the missile-to-target distance is required. At the same time, it is known that a radar's range channel has less resistance to jamming than its bearing channels. The SAGG guidance overcomes this problem by using two sets of target bearing information, that from the missile and the one from the fire control radar (eg, 30N6), and the secure missile-to-fire control radar distance information to indirectly generate the missile-to-target distance information via triangulation.

    Morpheus Eberhardt

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:04 am

    Sean, you are the man.
    Thanks for posting that again.

    Question- what in your opinion is the next desirable step in S-400 development?
    Any fundamentally new engagement techniques, or missile technologies, as far as long-range anti-air is concerned?
    I guess Nebo-M and 40N6 are the things to look out for now.
    One direction they are heading in is ABM, but I am more interested in non-ballistic targets.

    Thoughts on Buk-M3? It is the forgotten brother of Russian AD, all the focus is on S-300/400, or all the way down to Pantsir.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:54 pm

    i thought that missiles are the same in tvm or sagg ,sarh + datalink ,and the difference is in radar station.
    if sagg gets totally jammed it can just switch to pure tvm.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:22 pm

    TR1 wrote:Sean, you are the man.
    Thanks for posting that again.

    Question- what in your opinion is the next desirable step in S-400 development?
    Any fundamentally new engagement techniques, or missile technologies, as far as long-range anti-air is concerned?
    I guess Nebo-M and 40N6 are the things to look out for now.
    One direction they are heading in is ABM, but I am more interested in non-ballistic targets.

    Thoughts on Buk-M3? It is the forgotten brother of Russian AD, all the focus is on S-300/400, or all the way down to Pantsir.

    Buk-M3 should be a perfectly credible tactical SAM system. My only question is why they're apparently trying to field a bunch of systems that seem to fill the same role in terms of range and engagement capability. Realistically you could field the S-400 with all of its missiles, and then develop other TELARs to exploit the 9M96 missiles as tactical or shorter-range SAMs.

    The next step in S-400 evolution should be the incorporation of VHF-band signals into missile guidance commands. Think of it like this: GRAVE STONE is still a shorter wavelength radar, so it will be affected to a degree by LO. VHF-band radars like Nebo-M, particularly solid-state, digital AESAs, could care less about your centimetric wavelength LO. So, you could end up with Nebo-M providing range and bearing for launch, and then uplinking target data to the GRAVE STONE to provide midcourse guidance commands. GRAVE STONE tracks the missile, Nebo-M tracks the target, and at some point in the process the missile seeker acquires the target. The missile can still receive reflected GRAVE STONE energy even if it isn't strong enough or oriented right to make it all the way back to the engagement radar. So, you can still use SAGG, but the second set of target coordinates are coming from Nebo-M and not GRAVE STONE. Now you can wipe out fighter-sized stealth planes a lot more efficiently than you could before! Large platforms like the B-2 are still a problem since their size relative to the metric wavelengths of VHF-band radars allows them to get away with LO techniques that a fighter simply cannot.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:38 am

    SOC , I am under the impression that S-400 is already integrated with Nebo-M like system and the recent disclosure Nebo-M , L band and X band radar integrated to give a single picture on mobile platform are integrated with S-400.

    I saw Carlo Kopp stating that Nebo-M is accurate enough to take S-400 close to its target , close enough where its ARH can become active and is not impacted by LO property of the target.

    More interesting will be the new S-300V4 , since its stated range is 400 km , would like to see what new radar has it been integrated with , what could be its Top Speed and Average speed , hopefully they are not compromised on the latter aspect to get more range but used some new energetic propellent that does not compromise its original speed.

    SOC good to see you back on the board after a long time welcome

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:23 pm

    So Moscow air defence system will have only a few battalions S-400 ? Now is only fou.
    Production of the S-400 is going very slowly, and this is expensive system

    Moscow also has ABM systems that seem to be getting upgrades too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:20 pm

    Good to see you back SOC Very Happy

    welcome

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:43 pm

    Austin wrote:SOC , I am under the impression that S-400 is already integrated with Nebo-M like system and the recent disclosure Nebo-M , L band and X band radar integrated to give a single picture on mobile platform are integrated with S-400.

    You can use any radar you want within reason. As long as they can interface with the command post, they can give track data to the battery. What they haven't yet disclosed is if the system can work the way I described, using VHF-band radars to provide actual guidance commands to the missile. Right now all we know is that a VHF-band radar like Nebo-M can interface with the system, probably telling BIG BRID and GRAVE STONE where to look for the targets. But, if BIG BIRD and GRAVE STONE are not able to see the target at the range that Nebo-M can, they can't do anything. Integrating Nebo-M with the actual guidance system would change that.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:58 am

    Integrating Nebo-M with the actual guidance system would change that.

    Sounds a bit like the sensor fusion of the Mig-29 and Su-27 in that both aircraft had helmet mounted sights, plus IRST and of course great big radars in front of them. All three were connected and any of the three could be used to cue a missile seeker onto a target, so the pilot looking at the target with their HMS could lock the missile seeker onto a target, or the IRST could detect a target and point the radar at the target for a ranging ping... being optical the IRST has much better angular accuracy than a radar.

    I would suspect the all digital Nebo-M should be fully integrated, otherwise it is really only doing half the job...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:12 am

    SOC wrote:You can use any radar you want within reason. As long as they can interface with the command post, they can give track data to the battery. What they haven't yet disclosed is if the system can work the way I described, using VHF-band radars to provide actual guidance commands to the missile. Right now all we know is that a VHF-band radar like Nebo-M can interface with the system, probably telling BIG BRID and GRAVE STONE where to look for the targets. But, if BIG BIRD and GRAVE STONE are not able to see the target at the range that Nebo-M can, they can't do anything. Integrating Nebo-M with the actual guidance system would change that.

    Why do you need Guidance/FC command from Nebo-M when say a BIG BIRD or Grave Stone can guide it to the target.

    Even if the target does not have returns from these two radar on L & X band but Nebo-M in VHF band can still see them you can always launch a S-400 in the general area of the target using data inputs from Nebo-M and using that data by GRAVE STONE to guide the missile even though it does not see the target based on high probability that Nebo-M sees something that looks like a LO aircraft.

    Lets call that target a simulated target that GRAVE STONE guides 40N6 to and the data from simulated target comes from Nebo-M that is fed to Grave Stone to get as close to the target as possible till say ARH from 40N6 can see it.

    It may not be a tightly integrated Sensor Fused way to guide missile to the target but even a raw format it is doable, Whats your thought on this ?

    Although i certainly do not see Nebo-M or Any Radar in Russian inventory as long its worth to guide towards the target as a big challenge , the SAM does not really see the target unless its very close to it say few km but all it needs is some parameter that its onboard INS system can make sense to guide the SAM at a specific point where its ARH can become active and useful. Atleast that is what my understand of SAM guidance is.

    Ofcourse if you have a SAGG type guidance then you have to depends on GRAVE STONE or BIG BIRD for total guidance and end game engagement , and if grave stone does not see the target and does not have an autonomous way to guide it in final engagement then its practically useless.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  SOC on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:49 am

    Austin wrote:Why do you need Guidance/FC command from Nebo-M when say a BIG BIRD or Grave Stone can guide it to the target.

    Because they will not be able to see LO or VLO targets at the same range that Nebo-M will. If the stealthy target is packing a weapon with standoff range, it might be able to fire at the SAM site or some other target before the SAM can engage it.

    Austin wrote:Even if the target does not have returns from these two radar on L & X band but Nebo-M in VHF band can still see them you can always launch a S-400 in the general area of the target using data inputs from Nebo-M and using that data by GRAVE STONE to guide the missile even though it does not see the target based on high probability that Nebo-M sees something that looks like a LO aircraft.

    The issue isn't midcourse guidance, it's terminal homing.

    Austin wrote:Lets call that target a simulated target that GRAVE STONE guides 40N6 to and the data from simulated target comes from Nebo-M that is fed to Grave Stone to get as close to the target as possible till say ARH from 40N6 can see it.

    That would work for an ARH weapon, provided GRAVE STONE is configured to accept such an input and enable launch without onboard target acquisition.

    Austin wrote:It may not be a tightly integrated Sensor Fused way to guide missile to the target but even a raw format it is doable, Whats your thought on this ?

    Although i certainly do not see Nebo-M or Any Radar in Russian inventory as long its worth to guide towards the target as a big challenge , the SAM does not really see the target unless its very close to it say few km but all it needs is some parameter that its onboard INS system can make sense to guide the SAM at a specific point where its ARH can become active and useful. Atleast that is what my understand of SAM guidance is.

    That is correct, you're describing midcourse guidance. SAGG, for example, is only used during terminal homing.

    Austin wrote:Ofcourse if you have a SAGG type guidance then you have to depends on GRAVE STONE or BIG BIRD for total guidance and end game engagement , and if grave stone does not see the target and does not have an autonomous way to guide it in final engagement then its practically useless.

    This is why Nebo-M matters. If you're using any sort of guidance mode that relies on a signal return at the engagement radar (command, SARH, SAGG, etc.), you could be in trouble vs. a LO/VLO target. SAGG, for example, needs two inputs: missile seeker return, and engagement radar return. If you stick the Nebo-M signal in there instead of the engagement radar return, then you can still use the same guidance concept. For midcourse guidance all you have to do is feed the missile positional data from Nebo-M. All of the "we can find stealth aircraft" stuff...it doesn't necessarily apply to a great degree to any of the shorter-wavelength fire control radars. That capability has come about thanks to the development and refinement of digital VHF-band AESA radars.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Viktor on Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:36 am

    Here is interesting article that up to some point explaines what is really VKO (during the cold war - but can be applied even now on a

    lesser scale).

    Article does not explain the way in which integrated air defense network are designed and it does not enter into details but it does:

    - provide excellent insight in the way Russia air defense was (and largely still is) organized/ its structure

    - figures (which are mind blowing) which will for the the most here (who dont understand its concept) be amazing

    - basic concept and differences in PVO and Aviation design

    - when you open the link you will find in the same way described

    - Strategic Rocket Forces
    - Land Forces
    - Air Forces
    - Military Intelligence and its Resources



    Anyway, I would like to abstract one paragraph in particularly for its importance.


    The fact that 3,000 combat aircraft, among them some of the most advanced, have no operational, financial, administrative or any other connection with the Air Forces, has not been grasped by ordinary individuals in the West, nor even by Western military specialists. Very Happy It is therefore necessary to repeat Very Happy , that the ADF rate as a separate and independent Armed Service, with 3,000 supersonic interceptor aircraft, 12,000 anti-aircraft missile launchers and 6,000 radar installations. Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Its needless to say that of 12000 SAM deployed 3000 Very Happy launchers where S-300.



    And this still does not count everything as what is missing is:

    - SAM and Radar command post (the hart and mind of this all)
    - Infrastructural work (for SAM/radar instalation (prepared and unprepared locations), reserve too, roads, cables and wire installations
    and prepared ground work etc
    - Airfields and reserve airfields (just for VKO)
    - Intelligence service that is part of GRU but servers only for the purpose of VKO
    - etc












    The National Air Defence Forces

    1. The National Air Defence Forces (ADF) are the third most important of the five Services which make up the Soviet Armed Forces, after the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Land Forces. However, we will examine them at this point, directly after the SRF, since like the latter they represent not simply an administrative structure but a unified, controlled combat organisation, subordinated directly to the Supreme Commander. Because they form a unified combat organisation, the ADF are always commanded by a Marshal of the Soviet Union. The Land Forces, which are five times the size of the ADF, and which represent the striking force of the Soviet Union in Europe, are headed only by a General of the Army.



    2. In the armed forces of any other country, responsibility for air defence is laid upon its air forces. In the Soviet Union, the air defence system was so highly developed that it would be quite impossible to confine it within the organisational structure of the Air Forces. Moreover, the ADF are the third most important Service while the Air Forces occupy fourth place.
    The independence of the ADF from the Air Forces is due not only to their size and to their technical development, but also to the overall Soviet philosophy concerning the allocation of wartime roles. In any country in which Soviet specialists are given the task of setting up or restructuring the armed forces, they establish several parallel systems of air defence. One is a static system, designed to defend the territory of the country and the most important administrative, political, economic and transport installations which it contains. This is a copy of the ADF. In addition, separate systems for self-defence and protection against air attack are set up in the land forces, the navy and the air force.

    While the national defence system is static, those of the different armed services are mobile, designed to move alongside the forces which they exist to protect. If several systems find themselves operating in the same area, they work with one another and in such a case their collaboration is always organised by the national system.


    3. The division of the ADF into a national system and another system for the protection of the armed services, took place long before the Second World War. All anti-aircraft artillery and all searchlight and sound-ranging units were divided between those under the command of army and naval commanders and those covering the most important civil installations, which are not subordinated to army commanders but had their own control apparatus. The fighter aircraft available were divided in the same way. In 1939, for instance, forty air regiments (1,640 combat aircraft) were transferred from the strength of the Air Forces to that of the ADF, for both administrative and combat purposes. Mixed ADF units were formed from the anti-aircraft artillery, searchlight and air sub-units, which succeeded in cooperating very closely with one another.

    During the war the ADF completed their development into a separate, independent constituent of the Armed Forces, on an equal footing with the Land Forces, the Air Forces and the Navy. During the war, too, the development of fighter aircraft designed specifically for either the Air Forces or the ADF was begun. Flying training schools were set up to train ADF pilots, using different teaching programmes from those of the Air Forces. Subsequently, anti-aircraft gunnery schools were established, some of which trained officers for anti-aircraft units of the Land Forces and Navy while others prepared officers for the anti-aircraft units of the ADF. After the war, the teams designing anti-aircraft guns for the Armed Forces were directed to develop especially powerful anti-aircraft guns for the ADF.
    At the end of the war the total strength of the ADF was more than one million, divided into four ADF fronts (each with two or three armies) and three independent ADF Armies.
    After the war the ADF was given official status as an independent Armed Service.


    4. Today the ADF has more than 600,000 men. For administrative purposes they are divided into three arms of service:
    ADF Fighter Aviation
    ADF Surface-to-air Missile Forces
    ADF Radar Forces

    For greater efficiency and closer cooperation, the sub-units of these three arms of service are brought together to form mixed units-ADF Divisions, Corps, Armies and Fronts (in peacetime Fronts are known as ADF Districts).

    The fact that 3,000 combat aircraft, among them some of the most advanced, have no operational, financial, administrative or any other connection with the Air Forces, has not been grasped by ordinary individuals in the West, nor even by Western military specialists. It is therefore necessary to repeat, that the ADF rate as a separate and independent Armed Service, with 3,000 supersonic interceptor aircraft, 12,000 anti-aircraft missile launchers and 6,000 radar installations.

    It is because the ADF are responsible both for the protection of Soviet territory and of the most important installations in the USSR that they function independently. Since they are concerned mainly with the defence of stationary targets, the fighter aircraft developed for them differ from those with which the Air Forces are equipped. The ADF are also equipped with surface-to-air missiles and radar installations which differ from those used by the Land Forces and by the Navy.

    The Air Forces have their own fighter aircraft, totalling several thousand. The Land Forces have thousands of their own anti-aircraft missile launchers, anti-aircraft guns and radar installations. The Navy, too, has its own fighters, anti-aircraft missiles and guns and radar, and all of these belong to the individual Armed Service rather than to the ADF, and are used to meet the requirements of the operational commanders of the Land Forces, Air Forces and Navy. We will discuss these independent air defence systems later; for the moment we will confine ourselves to the national defence system.



    5. The fighter aircraft of the ADF are organised as regiments. In all, the ADF has more than seventy regiments, each with forty aircraft.

    The ADF cannot, of course, use fighter aircraft built for the Air Forces, any more than the latter can use aircraft built to the designs of the ADF. The Air Forces and the ADF operate under entirely different conditions and have different operational tasks and each Service therefore has its particular requirements from its own aircraft.

    The ADF operates from permanent airfields and can therefore use heavy fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft of the Air Forces are constantly on the move behind the Land Forces and must therefore operate from very poor airfields, sometimes with grass runways or even from sections of road. They are therefore much lighter than the aircraft used by the ADF.

    ADF fighters are assisted in their operations by extremely powerful radar and guidance systems, which direct the aircraft to their targets from the ground. These aircraft do not therefore need to be highly manoeuvrable but every effort is made to increase their speed, their operational ceiling and range. The Air Forces require different qualities from their fighter aircraft, which are lighter, since they have to operate in constantly changing situations, and from their pilots, who have to work unassisted, locating and attacking their targets for themselves. The Air Force fighters therefore need to be both light and highly manoeuvrable but they are considerably inferior to those of the ADF in speed, range, payload and ceiling.

    Let us look at an example of these two different approaches to the design of fighter aircraft. The MIG-23 is extremely light and manoeuvrable and is able to operate from any airfield, including those with grass runways. Clearly, it is an aircraft for the Air Forces. By contrast, the MIG-25, although designed by the same group, at the same time, is extremely heavy and unmanoeuvrable and can operate only from long and very stable concrete runways, but it has gained twelve world records for range, speed, rate of climb and altitude reached. For two decades this was the fastest operational aircraft in the world. It is easy to see that this is an ADF fighter.
    Besides the MIG-25, which is a high-altitude interceptor, the ADF have a low-level interceptor, the SU 15, and a long-range interceptor, the TU 128, which is designed to attack enemy aircraft attempting to penetrate Soviet air space across the endless wastes of the Arctic or the deserts of Central Asia.

    The Surface-to-air Missile (SAM) Forces of the ADF consist, organisationally, of rocket brigades (each with 10 to 12 launch battalions), regiments (3 to 5 launch battalions) and independent launch battalions. Each battalion has 6 to 8 launchers, according to the type of rocket with which it is equipped. Each battalion has between 80 and 120 men. First, all battalions were equipped with S 75 rockets. Then, to replace these, two rockets, the S 125 (low-altitude and short-range) and the S 200 (high-altitude and long-range), were developed. The S 200 can be fitted with a nuclear warhead to destroy enemy rockets or aircraft. Also introduced, to destroy the enemy's inter-continental ballistic missiles, was the UR 100, which has a particularly powerful warhead, but the deployment of this type has been limited by the US-Soviet ABM Treaty.

    Each SAM battalion is equipped with several anti-aircraft guns of small (23mm) and large (57mm) calibre. These are used to repel either low-flying enemy aircraft or attacks by enemy land forces. In peacetime, these anti-aircraft guns are not classified as a separate arm of service of the ADF. However, in wartime, when the strength of the ADF would be increased three or four times, they would form an arm of service, deployed as anti-aircraft artillery regiments and divisions, equipped with 23, 57, 85, 100 and 130mm guns, which are mothballed in peacetime.
    The Radar Forces of the ADF consist of brigades and regiments, together with a number of independent battalions and companies. They are equipped with several thousand radar installations, for the detection of enemy aircraft and space weapons and for the guidance towards these targets of ADF robot and interceptor aircraft.

    In addition to these three main arms of service, the complement of the ADF includes many supporting sub-units (providing transport, communications, guard duties and administration), two military academies and eleven higher officers' schools, together with a considerable number of test-ranges, institutes for scientific research and training centres.




    6. Operationally the ADF consists of a Central Command Post, two ADF Districts, which would become ADF Fronts in wartime, eight independent ADF Armies and several independent ADF Corps.

    Up to regimental and brigade level ADF formations are drawn from a single arm of service-for example from SAM brigades, fighter regiments, independent radar battalions, etc. From division level upwards, each arm of service is represented in each formation and these are therefore called ADF Divisions, Corps, etc.

    The organisation of each division, corps or other higher formation is decided in accordance with the importance of the installation which it is protecting. However, there is one guiding principle: each commander is responsible for the defence of one key point only. This principle is uniformly applied at all levels.

    The commander of an ADF division is responsible for the protection of a single, highly important installation, for instance, of a large power-supply centre. He is also required to prevent incursions by enemy aircraft over his sector. The division therefore deploys one SAM brigade to cover the main installation, and moves two or three SAM regiments into the-areas most likely to be threatened, ahead of the brigades, and a number of independent SAM battalions into areas which are in less danger. In addition, the divisional commander has one air regiment which may be used to make contact with the enemy at a considerable distance, for operations at boundaries or junctions not covered by SAM fire, or in the area in which the enemy delivers his main thrust. The operations of the SAM sub-units and of the interceptor aircraft are supported by radar battalions and companies which are subordinated both to the divisional commander himself and to the commanding officers of the division's SAM units.

    An ADF corps commander organises coverage of the target he is protecting in precisely the same way. To protect the main installation itself he has one ADF division. Both he and his divisional commander are involved in the defence of the same installation. Two or three SAM brigades are moved forward to cover the sectors which are under greatest threat, while SAM regiments are deployed in less endangered areas. One air regiment is under the direct command of the corps commander, for long-range use or for operations in the area in which the enemy delivers his main attack. If the SAM sub-units are put out of action, the corps commander can at any time make use of his fighter regiment to cover an area in which a breakthrough is threatened. Thus there are two air regiments with each ADF Corps, one at the disposal of the ADF divisional commander, the other for use by the corps commander. A corps contains three or four SAM brigades, one with the ADF division, the others at the disposal of the corps commander, covering the approaches to the divisional position. In a corps there are five or six SAM regiments, two or three of which are used in the division's main sector, the remainder in the secondary sectors of the corps area. Lastly, the corps commander himself has a radar regiment, in addition to the radar forces of his subordinates.

    An ADF Army commander, too, is responsible for the protection of a single key objective and has an ADF corps to cover it. In addition, an Army has two or three independent ADF divisions, each of which provides cover for its own key installation and also defends the main approaches to the key objective guarded by the Army. Independent SAM brigades are deployed in the secondary sectors of the Army's area. An Army commander also has two air regiments (one with aircraft for high-altitude operations, the other with long-range interceptors) and his own radar installations (including over-the-horizon radars).

    An ADF District is similar in structure. The key objective is covered by an Army. Two or three independent ADF corps are deployed in the sectors under greatest threat while the less endangered areas are covered by ADF divisions, each of which, of course, has a key objective of its own. The District Commander also has two interceptor air regiments under his command and radar detection facilities, including very large aircraft equipped with powerful radars.
    The nerve centre-Moscow-is, of course, covered by an ADF District; the main approaches to this District by ADF Armies and the secondary sectors by ADF corps. Each District and Army has, of course, the task of covering a key installation of its own.

    The ADF contains two ADF Districts. Something must be said about the reasons for the existence of the second of these-the Baku District. Unlike the Moscow District, the Baku ADF District does not have a key target to protect. The fact that Baku produces oil is irrelevant: twenty-four times as much oil is produced in the Tatarstan area as in Baku. The Baku ADF District looks southwards, covering a huge area along the frontiers, which is unlikely to be attacked. Several of the armies of the ADF (the 9th, for instance), have considerably greater combat resources than the whole Baku District. It is, however, because of the need to watch such a huge area, a task for which an ADF Army has insufficient capacity, that a District was established there.

    All in all, the ADF is the most powerful system of its sort in the world. It has at its disposal not only the largest quantity of equipment but in some respects the best equipment in the world. At the beginning of the 1980s the MIG-25 interceptor was the fastest in the world and the S-200 had the largest yield and the greatest range of any surface-to-air missile. In the period since the war the Soviet Air Defence Forces have shown their strength on many occasions. They did this most strikingly on 1 May, 1960, by shooting down an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, a type regarded until then as invulnerable, because of the incredible height at which it could operate. There is no doubt that the Soviet Air Defence Forces are the most experienced in the world. What other system can boast of having spent as many years fighting the most modern air force in the world as the Soviet ADF system in Vietnam?

    In the mid-1970s some doubt arose as to its reliability when a South Korean aircraft lost its way and flew over Soviet Arctic territory for some considerable time before being forced down by a Soviet SU-15 interceptor. However, the reasons for this delay can be fully explained; we have noted that interceptor aircraft do not represent the main strength of the ADF, which lies in its surface-to-air missiles. The territory across which the lost aircraft flew was quite unusually well-equipped with SAMs, but there is simply no reason to use them against a civil aircraft. At the same time, because of the deep snow which lay in the area, hardly any interceptors were stationed there. Their absence was compensated for by an abnormally large number of SAMs, ready to shoot down any military aircraft. In this unusual situation, once the invader had been found to be a civil aircraft, it became necessary to use an interceptor brought from a great distance. This aircraft took off from Lodeynoye Polye and flew more than 1,000 kilometres, in darkness, to meet the intruder. In an operational situation it would not have been necessary to do this. It would be simpler to use a rocket.

    Nevertheless, despite everything, the ADF has its Achilles heel. The fastest aircraft are flown by men who detest socialism with all their hearts. The pilot Byelenko is by no means unique in the ADF.

    LINK

    enjoy reading

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:03 pm

    wait a minute this book is from 1982? Laughing
    http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/index.html

    Anyways ,thanks. respekt

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:23 pm

    What Kind of Radar are they talking about operating in 10 m wavelength ? Can such radar detect Stealth Aircraft of B-2 types ?

    Defense will create a new network-horizon radar
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/10/rls/

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  medo on Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:29 pm

    Austin wrote:What Kind of Radar are they talking about operating in 10 m wavelength ? Can such radar detect Stealth Aircraft of B-2 types ?

    Defense will create a new network-horizon radar
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/10/rls/

    It's over the horizont radar, which is usually in metric wave (low frequency), that it waves could use ionosphere to follow the Earth curve. And yes, they could easily detect stealth planes, because non have 1 meter thick RAM cover, that is why stealth F-117 and B-2 were easily seen on old Soviet VHF radars.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:39 pm

    medo wrote:It's over the horizont radar, which is usually in metric wave (low frequency), that it waves could use ionosphere to follow the Earth curve. And yes, they could easily detect stealth planes, because non have 1 meter thick RAM cover, that is why stealth F-117 and B-2 were easily seen on old Soviet VHF radars.

    RAM plays a very small role in LO of an aircraft since RAM tends to be band specific and there is a limit to how much thick coating of RAM can be applies to Stealth Aircraft.

    The Key is Shaping , Dr Carlo Kopp once told me that B-2 can defeat any known radar due to its shape even a 30 m wavelength radar cant detect a B-2 and that purely because of its shaping.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:53 pm

    SOC wrote:
    Austin wrote:Why do you need Guidance/FC command from Nebo-M when say a BIG BIRD or Grave Stone can guide it to the target.

    Because they will not be able to see LO or VLO targets at the same range that Nebo-M will. If the stealthy target is packing a weapon with standoff range, it might be able to fire at the SAM site or some other target before the SAM can engage it.

    Just because you cannot see the target does not mean you cannot guide a missile to a specific point in space , even if GRAVE STONE cannot see a LO target it can still get data from Nebo-M to take it to a point in place where its onboard ARH may or may not track the target. The logic being the closer to the target you are chances are your radiation energy is powerful enough to get some returns from a LO target even though you ARH seeker could be X-band which LO target tends to mostly defeat.

    Austin wrote:Even if the target does not have returns from these two radar on L & X band but Nebo-M in VHF band can still see them you can always launch a S-400 in the general area of the target using data inputs from Nebo-M and using that data by GRAVE STONE to guide the missile even though it does not see the target based on high probability that Nebo-M sees something that looks like a LO aircraft.

    The issue isn't midcourse guidance, it's terminal homing.

    I agree Terminal Homing is the key , because no use taking a 40N6 close to a target and then realise even the ARH seeker cant see any thing.

    There are two ways one can minimise the issue of LO detection , Using a J-band seeker or better Ka band seeker that has much better resolution even if its short on range compared to other bands , Using Dual Mode Guidance compromising IIR Seeker and Ku/J band seeker.

    Considering big SAM do not have the same limitation as AAM and they have enough Space and Power Available to keep a Dual Mode Seeker compromising Ku Band and IIR channel ,may be even a dual mode IIR channel.

    This will ensure not only high probability of detecting LO targets of even B-2 class but also high noise and jamming immunity.

    Austin wrote:Lets call that target a simulated target that GRAVE STONE guides 40N6 to and the data from simulated target comes from Nebo-M that is fed to Grave Stone to get as close to the target as possible till say ARH from 40N6 can see it.

    That would work for an ARH weapon, provided GRAVE STONE is configured to accept such an input and enable launch without onboard target acquisition.

    Agree

    Austin wrote:It may not be a tightly integrated Sensor Fused way to guide missile to the target but even a raw format it is doable, Whats your thought on this ?

    Although i certainly do not see Nebo-M or Any Radar in Russian inventory as long its worth to guide towards the target as a big challenge , the SAM does not really see the target unless its very close to it say few km but all it needs is some parameter that its onboard INS system can make sense to guide the SAM at a specific point where its ARH can become active and useful. Atleast that is what my understand of SAM guidance is.

    That is correct, you're describing midcourse guidance. SAGG, for example, is only used during terminal homing.

    Can SAGG employ a Ku band on board seeker operating in CW mode and also let GRAVE STONE/BIG BIRD track the target ? With Luck even if a X/L band of GRAVE STONE fails to track the target for long due to its LO nature the onboard seeker of Ku band may still get target resolution to let GRAVE STONE guide it.

    Austin wrote:Ofcourse if you have a SAGG type guidance then you have to depends on GRAVE STONE or BIG BIRD for total guidance and end game engagement , and if grave stone does not see the target and does not have an autonomous way to guide it in final engagement then its practically useless.

    This is why Nebo-M matters. If you're using any sort of guidance mode that relies on a signal return at the engagement radar (command, SARH, SAGG, etc.), you could be in trouble vs. a LO/VLO target. SAGG, for example, needs two inputs: missile seeker return, and engagement radar return. If you stick the Nebo-M signal in there instead of the engagement radar return, then you can still use the same guidance concept. For midcourse guidance all you have to do is feed the missile positional data from Nebo-M. All of the "we can find stealth aircraft" stuff...it doesn't necessarily apply to a great degree to any of the shorter-wavelength fire control radars. That capability has come about thanks to the development and refinement of digital VHF-band AESA radars.

    DO you actually have some picture of say an F-117 being tracked by X , L and VHF wavelength , would like to see how does a radar see a LO target in these bands.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:14 pm

    medo wrote:
    Austin wrote:What Kind of Radar are they talking about operating in 10 m wavelength ? Can such radar detect Stealth Aircraft of B-2 types ?

    Defense will create a new network-horizon radar
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/06/10/rls/

    It's over the horizont radar, which is usually in metric wave (low frequency), that it waves could use ionosphere to follow the Earth curve. And yes, they could easily detect stealth planes, because non have 1 meter thick RAM cover, that is why stealth F-117 and B-2 were easily seen on old Soviet VHF radars.
    actually the wave bounces back ,it goes the same path twice ,so the thickness can be half the wavelength , eg. 0,5m.
    No they werent and their detection was much reduced- for old Neva was at 25ish kilometers ,it took some time to get a lock and fire 2 missiles ,one missed but second broke the wing and destroyed f-117 just withing missile engagement envelope at 15km distance and 8km height.
    The sam crew wouldnt dare to engage for so long, if the nighthawk had wildweasel supports nearby.


    Last edited by Rpg type 7v on Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: S-300/400/500 News [Russian Strategic Air Defense] #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:10 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:10 am