P.V.O. (Russian Air Defence) General Thread:

Yes, it is interesting. Maybe radar and EO ball complex could be used as CP vehicle for MANPADs like Igla-s and Verba mounted on Strelets or with modified Strela-10. I personally doubt Morphei itself will be made to protect mobile units because of too short range, but is perfect for point defense of static objects.

Yes, a unified air defence command vehicle with 360 degree coverage in radar and IR frequencies that could direct all air defence assets in an armoured formation that is standardised to allow it to operate with all AD assets would be a good idea IMHO.

Certainly the area a moving force would occupy would make the Morfei less than ideal to protect them due to its range.

It's good to read that air force will receive 60 new SAMs next year (S-400 and Pantsir-S1). I wonder if they also buy Buk-M3 or they will wait for Vityaz? I don't know, how many new SAMs will buy army air defense and navy, but I think in total it will be more than 100 SAMs, what is quite a nice number.

AFAIK the BUK is more of an Army system, I rather think the Air Force will go for Vityaz instead.

For the Navy they might go for vertical launch Buk on the Talwars they are buying while they sort out their new Frigate design.

It is of course possible that BUK might eventually be integrated into the Redut system... in fact there seems to be plans to make the UKSK launchers universal allowing SAMs to be loaded too.

This might mean several more UKSK launchers on each vessel offering rather more flexibility with the potential for a radar picket role vessel armed only with hundreds of SAMs as a SAM trap.

You would also need to add to the SAM purchases for the new VKO forces which will be a major consumer of SAMs and primary customer of the S-500s when they are ready.

Buk-M2 is for army, but as I know Buk-M3 is with vertical launched missiles placed on BAZ truck, so it could be used in air force for replacement of old medium range S-125 (SAM-3).

Talking about navy, I have in mind ground based SAMs for naval infantry and coastal defense to protect naval bases, like S-400 for Baltic fleet, not those places on ships. Anyway if total number of new build SAMs is near 100 for 2012, it is quite a big number.

I suppose an active guidance SAM such as the Vityaz can be used in a command guidance (like a BUK)or maybe SAGG (like a S-300).
1. Under what circumstances would the operator use these methods of guidance?
2. Do these active SAMs have also an optical guidance methods?

2. Do these active SAMs have also an optical guidance methods?

Do you mean active SAM a missile with active radar homing head inside missile or with active only mean missile is homing itself to target. In that case passive IR homing head is also active guidance, because missile after lock go to the target without assistance from the launcher and IR guidance is optical guidance. Missiles with ARH homing head don't have additional IR sensor inside missile, but optical, IR sensors could be on launcher and target position could be given to missiles also through optical channel.

Yes, I meant Active Radar homing.

As an example, can use guide an ARH SAM (e.g.Vityaz) the same way you would guide a command guidance SAM (e.g. SA-3)? and when or why would you do that?

I would suspect most have backup optical guidance systems as this is also a popular upgrade for existing older systems.

Optical guidance doesn't mean they add an optical sensor in the nose of the missile... it means they have an optical guidance component on the launcher that calculates and sends command guidance signals to the missile to make it hit the target.

Some radar guided missiles can use home on jam modes too.... obviously to jam a missile you send out radars emissions in the same frequency that the missile guides to so it should be able to see it (if it can't then it wouldn't be distracted by it.

TheArmenian wrote:Yes, I meant Active Radar homing.

As an example, can use guide an ARH SAM (e.g.Vityaz) the same way you would guide a command guidance SAM (e.g. SA-3)? and when or why would you do that?

No, they work in very different way. radio command guidance missile doesn't have any radar homing head, but only radio receiver in its back to receive radio signals from launcher. ARH or SARH missile doesn't have receiver in its back, but radar homing head in its nose. ARH missile could be used in SARH way or in passive way to lock on jamming signal. You would usually use SARH mode with ARH missile if target have to small RCS, that ARH head in missile itself could not see target or in too short distance, so you light target with your own radar, that missile easier find it and lock on it.

medo wrote:ARH or SARH missile doesn't have receiver in its back, but radar homing head in its nose. ARH missile could be used in SARH way or in passive way to lock on jamming signal. You would usually use SARH mode with ARH missile if target have to small RCS, that ARH head in missile itself could not see target or in too short distance, so you light target with your own radar, that missile easier find it and lock on it.

ARH or SARH missiles most certainly do carry receivers in many cases. How else do you think they receive midcourse guidance commands?

SOC wrote:

medo wrote:ARH or SARH missile doesn't have receiver in its back, but radar homing head in its nose. ARH missile could be used in SARH way or in passive way to lock on jamming signal. You would usually use SARH mode with ARH missile if target have to small RCS, that ARH head in missile itself could not see target or in too short distance, so you light target with your own radar, that missile easier find it and lock on it.

ARH or SARH missiles most certainly do carry receivers in many cases. How else do you think they receive midcourse guidance commands?

So, an ARH missile can be used in a command guidance mode all the way until impact?
In other words, one can remove the radar from the missile and use it as command guided SAM?
If so, a SAM battery can theoretically have some of its missiles without on board radar (which makes the rounds cheaper). Hence, the operator has a choice of using whichever type of missile (with or without active head) according to the threat and situation.
Of course, a tracking radar will become a necessity.

Am I making sense?

With optical guidance... yes.

There is of course a huge difference between an update datalink and a command guidance datalink.

With an update datalink a missile like R-77 fired at a target 40km distant will get there pretty fast, but as the target is likely a fighter jet, it will be moving around pretty fast too and the radar in the missile only has a limited field of view and only a limited range, so the intertial guidance looks at the targets speed and flight direction and distance from the launch aircraft and it knows how fast the missile flys, so it can calculate how long the missile will take to get near the target and then based on the speed and direction of the target it can estimate roughly where the target will be when the missile gets there... gives that intercept point information to the missile and then the missile is launched with its radar off.
When it gets to say 5-10km from that intercept point it will turn on its radar and find its target and then manouver to hit it... assuming the target continues on the same flight path. If the target turns and accelerates then the launch aircraft that has continued to track the target will calculate a new intercept point and then decide whether the missiles seeker head will be able to still detect the target from its old data. A turn of 5 degrees and acceleration of 50km/h might not make enough of a difference to warrant a course correction... if the launch aircraft keeps sending signals with new precise target locations the missile will not reach max range because all this manouvering will be burning up momentum and reducing its speed.


The command guidance datalink actually tracks the missile and the target and calculates the actual control surface deflections needed to change direction of the missile to hit the target, and is much more appropriate to use without a radar in the missile. Optical backup in modern SAMs basically means it has this command guidance channel option... it is often cheap and quite accurate, and you can use various methods, from getting the missile to follow a pencil radar beam, a radio command, or even a laser beam or grid.

The issue is that you have to track both the missile and the target and often it means you can only control one missile at a time, though sometimes you can guide two missiles to the same target.

My question on the other SAM related thread did not receive a proper answer. SOC where are you?

The question is: Can you use an Active Radar Homing SAM (like 9M96) as a command guided SAM (like an SA-3)?I mean switch the radar on board the missile or remove it completely and use a tracking radar (not search radar) to guide the missile all the way to impact.

P.S. : No optical tracking to be involved.

TheArmenian wrote:My question on the other SAM related thread did not receive a proper answer. SOC where are you?

The question is: Can you use an Active Radar Homing SAM (like 9M96) as a command guided SAM (like an SA-3)?I mean switch the radar on board the missile or remove it completely and use a tracking radar (not search radar) to guide the missile all the way to impact.

P.S. : No optical tracking to be involved.

Sorry, must not have been paying attention.

If an ARH SAM has a midcourse guidance datalink, then theoretically you could program it to use that the entire way, and just remove the homing head. It's basically operating as a command-guided weapon during midcourse anyway. The drawback is that you're potentially less accurate over longer ranges depending on the capability of your radar. That could be a big deal with a smaller warhead. There is also the possibility that this capability already exists as a form of ECCM, but I haven't seen anything to that effect that I can recall. The only major technical impediment I can think of is that you'd need to program the fuzing components to accept range-to-target data from the midcourse link and not the seeker head. I believe most SAMs don't technically "arm" until they reach a set distance from the target, most likely computed from the seeker head. This prevents you from, say, shooting a 48N6 towards a target, and having it go through a flock of birds or pass too close to something else (like a friendly aircraft that shoots across the area, which can happen during combat) and detonate because the fuze got triggered.

What kind of SAM and AD assets can we expect to see for PVO and Ground Forces current and future ?

Ground Forces

S-300V4 and VM , BUK-M2 ,BUK-M3 , TOR-M2 , Pantsir-S1 , Tunguska-M1 , Verba ,Igla-S

PVO & ASD

S-500 , S-400 , Vityaz , S-300PM , Morpheus , Upgraded A-135 , Future A-234


Did i get this right ?

There is another SAM to add to the Ground forces... it was called Balganuk or something like that and was a 10km range SAM that uses laser beam guidance... I wonder if they meant Kornet-EM?

But I think it was actually more like SOSNA-R and a two stage very high speed missile.

This is a nice interview if one has not read it before

http://ria.ru/interview/20110815/417675459.html

From what it appears from that interview that i have posted from Igor Ashurbeyli and from other sources , Vityaz SAM has nothing to do with 9M96 missile but it will be a new Single SAM.

So this will be a new SAM which will be optimised for air breathing targets like manouvering fighter and cruise missile but will have no anti-BM missile capability.

The designer said that Vityaz missile has a range comparable to S-300PS and PM.

I think the 9M96 missile lacks the energy of S-300 SAM and considering Vityaz will be more manouverable , i would bet it would be a Mach 5 plus missile like S-300 series.

Austin wrote:The designer said that Vityaz missile has a range comparable to S-300PS and PM.

I think the 9M96 missile lacks the energy of S-300 SAM and considering Vityaz will be more manouverable , i would bet it would be a Mach 5 plus missile like S-300 series.

Older S-300PS and PM have range around 90 and 120 km, PMU1 have 150 km and PMU2 have 200 km, so 120 km range 9M96 missile is quite in the level of those older S-300. In my opinion they will only have to modify 9M96 missile to suite Vityaz.

The PMU1 is just an export model of PS and PMU2 is an export model of PM.

Only the oldest model of S-300 had 90 Km range , So i would expect Vityaz range to be between PS and PM.

I still feel the 9M98 lacks the energy of S-300 series.

Austin wrote:The PMU1 is just an export model of PS and PMU2 is an export model of PM.

Only the oldest model of S-300 had 90 Km range , So i would expect Vityaz range to be between PS and PM.

I still feel the 9M98 lacks the energy of S-300 series.

Old models are S-300PT with 75 km range and S-300PS with 90 km range. Domestic S-300PMU1 is S-300PM1 and S300PMU2 is S-300PM2 and those two will be replaced by S-400 as long range SAM. Vityaz is medium range SAM, which will replace old PT and PS series and in that class 9M96 missile with 120 km range is more than enough. Energy of S-300 series is in S-400 to intercept longer range ballistic missiles. For the purpose of medium range SAM 9M96 is good enough.

medo wrote:Old models are S-300PT with 75 km range and S-300PS with 90 km range. Domestic S-300PMU1 is S-300PM1 and S300PMU2 is S-300PM2 and those two will be replaced by S-400 as long range SAM. Vityaz is medium range SAM, which will replace old PT and PS series and in that class 9M96 missile with 120 km range is more than enough. Energy of S-300 series is in S-400 to intercept longer range ballistic missiles. For the purpose of medium range SAM 9M96 is good enough.

Actually the S-400 is not really replacing the S-300 series , if you read the interview i posted above and other that i have read , the S-300 series is being replaced by Vityaz.

S-400 stands on its own feet so to speak , All missile in S-400 series have anti-ballistic and anti-aircraft capability of varying ranges and proportion. In some cases where the S-300 missile have gone old is perhaps out of life they are being replace by S-400 , in some cases S-300 are being transferred to other unit and in some both S-300 and 400 exist

Here are the details of S-400 deployment artjomh shared with me

606th Guards Air Defense Regiment (5th Airspace Defense Brigade, Operational Strategic Airspace Command): originally equipped with three batteries of S-300PM. First S-400 battery reequipped in 2007, second in 2009, third in 2010. S-300PM transferred to other regiments (1489th and 1490th Air Defense Regiments, near St.-Petersburg, as replacement for S-300PS).

- 210th Air Defense Regiment (4th Airspace Defense Brigade, Operational Strategic Airspace Command): originally equipped with three batteries of S-300PM. First and second S-400 battery reequipped in 2009, third battery remains equipped with S-300PM.

Vityaz is medium range SAM, which will replace old PT and PS series and in that class 9M96 missile with 120 km range is more than enough. Energy of S-300 series is in S-400 to intercept longer range ballistic missiles. For the purpose of medium range SAM 9M96 is good enough.

I fully agree, I think a combination of comparable range to the older model S-300s, plus the fact that it is smaller and lighter and quadruples the number of ready to fire missiles makes the larger of the two small S-400 missiles ideal as the basis for Vityaz. Its compatibility with S-400 is an added bonus.

Actually the S-400 is not really replacing the S-300 series , if you read the interview i posted above and other that i have read , the S-300 series is being replaced by Vityaz.

Austin, the S-300 series has been in production and service for 30 years, but because of the financial situation in the Soviet Union and then Russia the vast majority produced were older shorter range models.

The replacement regime seems a little strange, but it makes sense because there are two factors you need to keep in mind.
First there are elite priority units/regions that get new kit first because of their importance. Right now the Kurile Islands region has become a priority where before it was not, so when they send S-400 batteries there they will be replacing ancient model S-300s that will likely be sold or scrapped. Other cases where high priority regions like Moscow or other areas in the west that had modern S-300 models already will see these new model S-300s replaced by S-400s, but the S-300s they are replacing are still quite capable so rather than scrapping them or putting them in storage or giving them away to an ally, they will cascade these systems to other units where they operate older model S-300s.

The result is that S-400 will replace old and new S-300s for now, but as the Vityaz comes on line and is in production (which should be cheaper and faster than with the larger missiles of S-400) it will likely replace S-300 in non priority areas.

Priority areas in this case can be identified as areas where the threat is cruise missiles and aircraft and aircraft weapons... and also theatre based ballistic missiles. Such targets will have S-400 systems defending them.

Lower priority areas where there is no ballistic missile threat... just aerodynamic targets, they will operate Vityaz instead of S-400.

In practical terms what this means is that the 75 and 90km range S-300 will be replaced by likely a 120km range Vityaz, while the longer ranged S-300s will be replaced by even longer ranged S-400s.

606th Guards Air Defense Regiment (5th Airspace Defense Brigade, Operational Strategic Airspace Command): originally equipped with three batteries of S-300PM. First S-400 battery reequipped in 2007, second in 2009, third in 2010. S-300PM transferred to other regiments (1489th and 1490th Air Defense Regiments, near St.-Petersburg, as replacement for S-300PS).

So as S-400 batteries became available they replaced S-300PM, or high priority batteries first, but those S-300PM batteries were transferred to other units as a replacement for their older S-300PS.

- 210th Air Defense Regiment (4th Airspace Defense Brigade, Operational Strategic Airspace Command): originally equipped with three batteries of S-300PM. First and second S-400 battery reequipped in 2009, third battery remains equipped with S-300PM.

Which clearly shows the low production rate of the S-400 means it is taking time even just replacing the S-300PM batteries.

As PM batteries are replaced by S-400 batteries those PM batteries are replacing PS batteries, so they will end up with a force of S-400 and S-300PM batteries. When Vityaz is in production they will replace the remaining S-300PS batteries first and then depending on the role and location the S-300PM will be replaced with either S-400 or Vityaz.