Soviet SAM systems. What are your thoughts?

AlfaT8 wrote:The recent claims of electronic warfare in Syria had me thinking about how current and modernized AD-systems would work.
And although IRST's were meant as a back-up, but could it also serve as a 3rd factor for authentication with respects to short-to-medium AD-systems?
I mean we have the Search Radar then the Targeting Radar and finally the IRST.

In Soviet times, perhaps the technology for identifying target at that range wasn't doable, but now with current IRST systems such a thing should be very simple.
Or am i way off, what are your thoughts guys?

You have different search radars in the integrated air def system. Before you turn on the search radar of your air defence system, you will use long range rdars like p-18 or Nebo which are much harder detected by fighters because they need a big antenna and are very long range 300-600km. Those radar will tell you where the fighters come from so you can guess if they are bad or friends.

Then when they are in range you use the search radar of your system which will be detected by the fighters but if they are in range of missiles you don't care. They are short legs than the first one I mentioned. I think for pantsir it is something like around 50km and tracking radar at 28km. So it should be detected by passive RWR of fighters at 100km.

When you jam a radar you have no idea if it works. The radar crew if well trained can go through your jaming. They can also use other radars to track you. They can also wait turned off and use optics to find you while and p-18 far away from both of you will give your position in real time.

Moreover they don't need to identify you. If you jam the  ground radars it means you are a bad guy.

It simplier to use a thousand of cluster munitions inside the sa-5 and release them from 1km altitude to cover all the airfield.

Of course it would be simpler to use cluster munitions... but not really effective.

First of all how to you get a good even pattern spread of munitions?

How do you ensure that 99% of those munitions don't just land in open ground and explode harmlessly?

1% is likely to hit the runway,, but even then the chances of getting the air defence systems and aircraft sitting on the runway is poor.

In Soviet times, perhaps the technology for identifying target at that range wasn't doable, but now with current IRST systems such a thing should be very simple.
Or am i way off, what are your thoughts guys?

What are you expecting the IRST to do?

Basically, what it will do is detect hot spots... in the air it is probably an aircraft, but on the ground it could be a black coloured rock that has been heated up by the sun so that it stands out as a potential target.

GarryB wrote:

In Soviet times, perhaps the technology for identifying target at that range wasn't doable, but now with current IRST systems such a thing should be very simple.
Or am i way off, what are your thoughts guys?

What are you expecting the IRST to do?

Basically, what it will do is detect hot spots... in the air it is probably an aircraft, but on the ground it could be a black coloured rock that has been heated up by the sun so that it stands out as a potential target.

That's the thing, in the event of electronic warfare, like the one recently claimed in Syria, where fake boogies reportedly appeared, would the IRST be used as a visual authenticator before firing?

New post  GarryB Today at 2:24 am

It simplier to use a thousand of cluster munitions inside the sa-5 and release them from 1km altitude to cover all the airfield.

Of course it would be simpler to use cluster munitions... but not really effective.

First of all how to you get a good even pattern spread of munitions?

How do you ensure that 99% of those munitions don't just land in open ground and explode harmlessly?

1% is likely to hit the runway,, but even then the chances of getting the air defence systems and aircraft sitting on the runway is poor.

Well you can still add a gps/glonass receiver for each munitions and make them bigger.

The chances are not poor to hit aircraft. If you want to destroy an airbase you don't use one missile but tens of them. And then you send some bombers finish the work.

Ten missiles with hundreds cluster munitions inside them will destroy the runway unless if it misses by 2 km. The outdoor parked aircraft won't have a chance too. You can also mix warheads for your missiles some can be guided to destroy precise targets like air def systems or the middke of the runway.

Depend from what altitude you release them, cluster munition can cover a large surface. Everything inside will be touched.

Kolos manpad with seven 30mm rockets. So simple but would be so effectuve against helecopters or ground targets. It could counter APS on tanks from the sides.

At 30mm I am guessing they are just unguided rockets... in which case a light truck mounted 57mm 32 shot rocket pod might be a cheaper option in the sense it is already developed and operational...

The rudimentary sights suggest it is a short range last ditch weapon that might be successful in volleys at targets, but you might be better off firing a 40mm grenade launcher at the target instead...

Might be useful for using up APS munitions on enemy tanks I guess, but again a 40mm grenade launcher with rounds fitted with luneberg lenses so they look big and a threat might be simpler and cheaper and more multi purpose.

Came across an article on the Kolos. Apparently the idea was to develop a cheap AA weapon that could be supplied to the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War to use mainly against helicopters. But it never took off...not long afterwards, the Strela-2 entered service

The Germans were working on a similar weapon at the end of WWII

Fliegerfaust



https://en.topwar.ru/41227-perenosnoy-zenitnyy-raketnyy-kompleks-kolos.html

@GarryB: it was supposed to be a AA. Rockets have a straight flight path while grenades from grenade luncher not really. At close range it should be very easy to use against helicopters. Ground attack woukd have been a second role IMO.


@Cyberspec: was it tested ?

@GarryB: it was supposed to be a AA. Rockets have a straight flight path while grenades from grenade luncher not really. At close range it should be very easy to use against helicopters. Ground attack woukd have been a second role IMO.

No, rockets don't have a straight flight path.

If those rockets had their motors burning as they left that tube the rocket blast would kill or seriously injure the person holding it... without a blast shield or special body armour for the user that means the rockets burn inside the rocket tubes only... so once they leave the tube they are ballistic like any grenade or cannon shell or bullet.

When firing a volley of interceptors like that accuracy is not critical... in fact a good spread of rockets improves the chances of some good hits.

A 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher would be much more versatile and effective... with relatively short rocket tubes those rockets wont be particularly high velocity, so they would pretty much rely on HE capacity to be effective, so a grenade launcher might have smaller HE payloads but with a 30 plus round belt feed system could continue to shower the target with rounds. They are also already in service and the ammo is already in production.

With a simple laser range finder and ballistics computer a sighting system could generate an aim point for the user to get most grenades on target with the first burst.

There are a lot of reports of the Afghan rebels using RPG rockets against helos taking advantage of their safety fuzes that will detonate the standard anti armour rocket at a range of about 950m. By launching rockets at a helicopter base or landing helicopters from about 950m you have the chance of getting an airburst amongst the helos, or hitting the ground near the helos which would also set them off...

A new model RPG with simple gyro stabilisation would be a relatively simple and cheap way of greatly improving the accuracy of the rockets without making them super expensive... Smerch and Grad rockets use simple gyro stabilisation for the rockets to keep the volleys closer together and therefore more effective.

Isos wrote:@GarryB:  it was supposed to be a AA. Rockets have a straight flight path while grenades from grenade luncher not really. At close range it should be very easy to use against helicopters. Ground attack woukd have been a second role IMO.


@Cyberspec: was it tested ?

Yes between 1967-68. It showed a reasonable level of accuracy against a hovering helicopter and was very cheap to produce...36 rubles for the launcher and another 31 rubles for a pack of rockets. Nevertheless at the end of the tests it was judged as having no prospects and didn't enter service with neither the Soviets or the Vietnamese

Yes between 1967-68. It showed a reasonable level of accuracy against a hovering helicopter and was very cheap to produce...36 rubles for the launcher and another 31 rubles for a pack of rockets. Nevertheless at the end of the tests it was judged as having no prospects and didn't enter service with neither the Soviets or the Vietnamese

They probably realised that they could simply get 20 guys with AKs and RPG-2s and just everyone fire at the helo... Most transport helos are very vulnerable to ground fire... during the Vietnam war era especially.

Sorry... a couple of old posts I want to comment on....

That's the thing, in the event of electronic warfare, like the one recently claimed in Syria, where fake boogies reportedly appeared, would the IRST be used as a visual authenticator before firing?

Using IRST for ID is pointless... so much so that I suspect you don't mean IRSTs, you mean IR imaging systems like thermal imagers. An IIR system would be useful because it creates an image of the target so there is some basis for identification... with IRST you see hot points... a dot... a target of undefined shape or size... looking up into the air it could be the sun but its position is pretty clear so it can be eliminated from the display... other heat sources in the air are potential aircraft or munitions and therefore targets worth attention.

Well you can still add a gps/glonass receiver for each munitions and make them bigger.

That would make them bigger and more expensive so less would be carried... and to what purpose?

If you know the precise coordinates of the targets why use a cluster bomblets... cluster bomblets are like a shotgun blast... you use it against small elusive targets that tend to move after you launch your attack. If you know exactly where the target is you use a rifle... or missile with a high level of precision.

Some good info on S-125-2TM / Pechora-2TM Medium Range Air Defence Missile System. Claims 92% accuracy

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s-125-2tm-pechora-2tm-medium-range-air-defence-missile-system/

Interesting footage of the exercises of the air defense units of the Mongolian army. The exercises demonstrated the upgraded S-125-2M "Pechora-2M" air defense systems with self-propelled launchers 5P73-2M on the MZKT-8021 chassis with a 6x6 wheel arrangement. These systems are manufactured by JSC "Defense Systems" and were supplied to Mongolia in 2010.

So if I follow this correctly the newer systems start with the SA-10 and run up to the SA-27? Not including the SA-13 which is one of the older mobile systems.

Out of these newer double digit SAM systems some of them are completely reinvented older systems?

SA-1 was build in enormous numbers, but was not used outside the Soviet Union.

SA-2 is better known as used in Vietnam and exported relatively widely for medium and high altitude targets and came in a huge number of models and upgrades.

SA-3 is a mid to low altitude system that is still around as a SAM system (older models and newer models widely used as target drones).

SA-4 enormous cumbersome ramjet powered missile that was their first mobile system with external strap on solid booster rockets. Replaced by SA-6 with efficient combined rocket ramjet propulsion on mobile vehicle.

SA-5 is big rocket powered missile with strap on solid fuelled rockets, with record effective range. Ukrainian model shot down an airliner at about 250km range when they lost control of it in an exercise a few years back.

SA-6 is tracked Army SAM intended to move with armoured forces, it replaced the SA-4 and had 3 missiles instead of the two of the much larger SA-4.

SA-7 Manpad missile very very similar to Redeye, though upgraded and improved over time but replaced by multiple improvements.

SA-8 Wasp, is a predecessor of TOR (SA-15). Mobile and reasonably effective short range system (12km).

SA-9 is a light IR guided missile on a BRDM-2 vehicle... mobile but relatively short range missile.

SA-10 is the Air Force wheeled truck model of the S-300 system, in this case the S-300P. (S-300V is the Army system called SA-12, while S-300F is the Naval Rif. The S-300V is a completely different missile and system while S-300F is based on the S-300P).

SA-11 BUK is a solid rocket replacement for SA-6 that fixed its main problems and added a fourth missile per vehicle.

SA-12 is S-300V which is a two missile system used by the Army against ballistic and air threats.

SA-13 is an improved Strela-10M SAM that is based on the bigger MTLBu artillery tractor and replaces the SA-9.

SA-14 replaces the SA-7 as an improved MANPADS.

SA-15 is TOR a very powerful and capable replacement for SA-8 with 8 vertically launched cheap and simple command guided SAMs for Army units to protect from aircraft and munitions like Hellfire and guided and unguided bombs and missiles. Later models have 16 ready to launch missiles. Expensive with very capable 3D radar. US equivalent was called Mauler but did not get into service.

SA-16 is the first Igla MANPADS, and is related to SA-18 and also SA-24 which are further improvements of Igla (ie Igla-1 and Igla-S). Very capable missiles.

SA-17 is improved BUK with shorter fins and better performance, able to shoot down ballistic and HARM targets too.

SA-18 is MANPAD Igla upgrade.

SA-19 is the missile system on the Tunguska that effectively replaced the SA-9 and SA-13 and Shilka in Army units.

SA-20 is S-300 SAM system upgrades of the S-300 family, S-300PMU etc.

SA-21 is S-400 replacement of longer ranged missiles for S-300F and S-300P.

SA-22 are the longer ranged missiles of Pantsir (12km and 20km) which will likely be retrofitted to any Tunguska replacement in the Army.

SA-23 S-300V4 Army heavy long range SAMs for ballistic and airborne threats from cruise missiles to pretty much anything THAAD or PAC-3 Patriot could handle.

SA-24 MANPAD is Igla-S with proximity fuse for drones and small targets including cruise missiles.

SA-25 MANPAD is Verba.

In addition to the above systems is Pine, sometimes called SOSNA-R, which is a two stage laser beam riding 10km range SAM of very high speed soon to enter service with the Army, and S-350, which is the 9M96 small missiles from the S-400 system that will be cheaper and smaller and lighter with twelve missile tubes per launch vehicle able to engage targets at 60km and 150km with active radar homing missile, but also able to carry 4 9M100 short range lock on after launch missiles per launch tube (ie 12 tubes = 48 missiles with the 9M100, or 12 9M96 missiles loaded)

S-350 will replace upgraded S-300 systems and also be widely deployed for their improved performance.

Many of these missiles are also used on ships but have different designations.

The one navy missile with no obvious land based equivalent is the SA-N-3 Goblet, which I think looks like an SA-5 with its wrap around solid rocket booster rockets missing.

Be aware that many of the older systems have had serious upgrades and for tasks like shooting down drones and cruise missiles are actually rather well suited.

Quite a lot of other obsolete SAMs are used for target drones during the various regular air defence tests and exercises they perform every year.

@garryb

Few things to mention SA-1 was used out of the Soviet Union, it is/was used in North Korea.

Am I correct in saying SA-4, Tor, Tunguska, haven't ever been used in combat? I know S-300, S-400, Buk -M3 hasn't.

I agree many Soviet systems that have been upgraded are still a dangerous threat and some have seen plenty of action in Syria. Sa-3 upgraded seems to be a pretty decent system. And to mention the Sa-6 upgrade that uses Air to air missiles normally used by aircraft although haven't seen it in action, and noticed that Serbia had a similar system using same Air to air missiles along with a Bofors 40mm gun.

And of course u have the Shilka ZSU-23-4, with upgrades to radar and addition of MANPADS. The same had been applied to the ZU-23-2 (radar, MANPADS) including a version adding strela-10 (Sa-13) missiles.

Many countries had also added their own upgrades and can be anything from replacing analog parts with digital parts, better missiles, range, fire control, to mounting it on a self propelled platform (a very common upgrade on the Sa-3), systems for example Irans Mesbah a 8 barrel Zu-23-2 that uses radar, IR, fire control 3D radar capable of targeting cruise missiles, and the Baham a truck mounted ZSU-57-2 with similar upgrades as the Mesbah, and the Sa-ir a KS-19 100mm anti air gun, with a self loading mechanism, fire control, radar control, track n fire systems with 20km engagement range (15km altitude range), 40km tracking range with proximity fuses, a potential drone warm killer. Goes to show their is still some life left in Soviet systems. I think it's safe to say the Soviets and later Russia has produced great air defence systems for all types of threat and they are effective.

Tor was used in Syria and in NK by Armenia.

Apparently Tungusta was used during 2008 War and the s-300 in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and most likely in Syria as well.

Isos wrote:Tor was used in Syria and in NK by Armenia.

Any kills?

Mir wrote:Apparently Tungusta was used during 2008 War and the s-300 in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and most likely in Syria as well.

Any kills?

Sa-4 would most have likely be used in by Armenia they have loads of them but haven't heard any kills.

d_taddei2 wrote:

Isos wrote:Tor was used in Syria and in NK by Armenia.

Any kills?

Drones and rockets/mortar shells.

Am I correct in saying SA-4, Tor, Tunguska, haven't ever been used in combat?

SA-4 not as far as I am aware, though its HE warhead was huge so it is possible it might have been used in a local war after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I doubt it.

TOR is standard Army equipment and would be operational in the Chechen conflicts as well as in Syria, and Tunguska was used in Chechnia mainly in the ground to ground role.

And of course u have the Shilka ZSU-23-4,

The advantage of upgrading older systems is that as an example the old electronics of the Shilka would fill a normal car up, but effectively with modern electronics you could get better performance with the computing power of a tablet or cellphone so an upgrade for Shilka could dramatically free up enormous volumes of internal space while improving performance and capabilities.

Personally I would take out the four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 2A38M cannon and load up the turret with a few thousand 30mm cannon shells and put the new EO turret of the Tunguska on top replacing the radar and probably mount Pine missiles on it. 10km range laser beam riding missiles that are relatively cheap and simple and very very fast.

A big missile like SA-3 has lots of internal space for replacement electronics and increased fuel capacity and a warhead reduction because of the improved performance and accuracy will increase range and speed too.

The SA-3 would actually be ideal for shooting down a large cruise missile attack...

GarryB wrote:

Am I correct in saying SA-4, Tor, Tunguska, haven't ever been used in combat?

SA-4 not as far as I am aware, though its HE warhead was huge so it is possible it might have been used in a local war after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I doubt it.

TOR is standard Army equipment and would be operational in the Chechen conflicts as well as in Syria, and Tunguska was used in Chechnia mainly in the ground to ground role.

And of course u have the Shilka ZSU-23-4,

The advantage of upgrading older systems is that as an example the old electronics of the Shilka would fill a normal car up, but effectively with modern electronics you could get better performance with the computing power of a tablet or cellphone so an upgrade for Shilka could dramatically free up enormous volumes of internal space while improving performance and capabilities.

Personally I would take out the four 23mm cannon and replace them with a single twin barrel 2A38M cannon and load up the turret with a few thousand 30mm cannon shells and put the new EO turret of the Tunguska on top replacing the radar and probably mount Pine missiles on it.  10km range laser beam riding missiles that are relatively cheap and simple and very very fast.

A big missile like SA-3 has lots of internal space for replacement electronics and increased fuel capacity and a warhead reduction because of the improved performance and accuracy will increase range and speed too.

The SA-3 would actually be ideal for shooting down a large cruise missile attack...

Totally agree that upgrading the shilka with SOSNA-R missiles, 30mm guns etc a cheaper version of pantsir on platform that Ur army know. I know North Korea removed the quad 23mm guns and replaced with two 30mm guns so half way there, I am actually surprised NK didn't put MANPAD on it as well, they seem to like to add them to many vehicles.

https://twitter.com/301_AD/status/1414518454233845763

Armenian Osa-AKM, which shot down 6 UAVs and survive the war.

Armenia had some SA-4 in Artsakh, but question is, if they were operational and if they have crews for them. Anyway, majority of targets could not be seen by this very old complex.