Soviet SAM systems

[bojan]

Someone asked about good introductory book, in absence of such here is a really good video about S-125/SA-3 (there are English subtitles):

 

Edited May 20 by bojan

[bojan]

Buk/SA-11:

 

[Dawes]

SA-3 was roughly similar to HAWK in overall performance?

[bojan]

Hawk was more advanced system (semi-active radar homing) and was probably "best" AD system from introduction up at least introduction of Kub (SA-6) or maybe even Buk (SA-11), but it had some issues, like relatively low system redundancy, low MTBF for radar before I-Hawk was introduced in the '70s and huge price*. AD systems are really, really hard to compare since change of even single radar can introduce big changes in the overall  performances.

*In the mid-70s single Bn of Hawk cost about same as 3-Bn regiment of SA-3.

Edited May 20 by bojan

[bojan]

Low level target engagement sequence for S-350. Shown are minimum*, optimal and maximum* engagement ranges.

*System can have variable minimal range, depending on the method of guidance used.

**This is more-less the same for every SAM system as limiting factor is curvature of the earth, not real performances of the system.

 

[Markus Becker]

Thank you!

PS: Interesting visualization of targets. X wing, heavy fighter and something from Stargate I guess.

Edited May 28 by Markus Becker

[urbanoid]

On 5/20/2023 at 1:56 AM, bojan said:

Hawk was more advanced system (semi-active radar homing) and was probably "best" AD system from introduction up at least introduction of Kub (SA-6) or maybe even Buk (SA-11), but it had some issues, like relatively low system redundancy, low MTBF for radar before I-Hawk was introduced in the '70s and huge price*. AD systems are really, really hard to compare since change of even single radar can introduce big changes in the overall  performances.

*In the mid-70s single Bn of Hawk cost about same as 3-Bn regiment of SA-3.

How many launchers and radars in a typical SA-3 and Hawk Bns?

[Josh]

Hawk battery was six launchers, a search/acquisition radar, a continuous wave radar, a range only radar, and two fire control/ illumination radars (SARH). It was a bulky system.

 

Not sure about SA-3. In Syrian use they seem to generally use three launchers, but not sure what was Soviet best practice. I think there was a search/acquisition and separate fire control radar (command guidance) associated with each battery but not positive.

Edited May 28 by Josh

[Pavel Novak]

Hawk battalion had up to 4 such batteries as described above plus battalion operation centre (BOC) which depending on nation could have own acquisition radar (AN/TPS-1 in Germany) plus close protection units (AAA and manpads).

S-125 [SA-3] battalion had normally one firing battery with engagement radar and four launchers, one acquisition radar (usually P-15), rarely height finder and close protection units.

So Hawk battalion had capacity to engage up to 8 targets (West Germany kept this but I think Belgium and/or Netherlands had reduced capability) at once while S-125 battalion only 1.

Edited May 28 by Pavel Novak

[bojan]

When Yugoslavia considered acquiring HAWK in the early '70s (before SA-3 acquisition) it was offered Bn with 2 batteries as base package. It could engage four targets at the same time in that version since each battery could engage two. This was considered excellent capability for a time. But problem was that HAWK could not be properly linked into either Soviet (well, duh...) nor for some weird reason British (wtf?) AD command system. It needed whole own package so single Bn was basically worthless on it's own unless linked with other Hawk (and practically only Hawk) Bns. Compared to that, SA-3, while way less capable (Pavel explained why) was able to work well with both Soviet AD control system and also with British and Swedish made ones*.

Additional problem is that price of that single Hawk Bn was about same as 3 SA-3 Bn, and while all 3 could only engage 3 targets (vs 4 for even single minimum sized Hawk Bn) those could be more widely spread and cover way larger territory. Hence in the end decision was taken to go with SA-3 and invest more money in the AD control system.

*Why that difference in compatibility is way, way beyond my area of even educated guess.

 

Re: local AD - IIRC in Yugoslavia SA-3 Bns had MANPADS platoon with 3 sections, each with 3 x SA-7 launcher. Regiment also had additional AD assets, IIRC Bn of AA guns + more MANPADS.

 

Edited May 28 by bojan

[DB]

This wiki page, describing a Yugoslavian SAM from the 1950s/60s mentions the British No.3 Mk.7 "Blue Cedar" radar. Interestingly, the wiki page for that doesn't mention Yugoslavia as a customer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-25_Vulkan

Perhaps it's this, along with the associated predictor unit?

[Captain Hurricane]

5 pages of experiences and how Belgian Hawk batteries operated can be found starting here: http://www.16va.be/hawk_eng_part1.html

Looks like they used old HS-820 triple 20mm AA guns for close in AA protection of each battery (From page 5). 

[shep854]

1 hour ago, Captain Hurricane said:

5 pages of experiences and how Belgian Hawk batteries operated can be found starting here: http://www.16va.be/hawk_eng_part1.html

Looks like they used old HS-820 triple 20mm AA guns for close in AA protection of each battery (From page 5). 

Thanks!  I have never seen much on HAWK operations; probably never looked in the right spots.

A really interesting read--thanks again!!

Edited May 29 by shep854

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Captain Hurricane said:

5 pages of experiences and how Belgian Hawk batteries operated can be found starting here: http://www.16va.be/hawk_eng_part1.html

Looks like they used old HS-820 triple 20mm AA guns for close in AA protection of each battery (From page 5). 

Very interesting, thanks!

[bojan]

5 hours ago, DB said:

This wiki page, describing a Yugoslavian SAM from the 1950s/60s mentions the British No.3 Mk.7 "Blue Cedar" radar. Interestingly, the wiki page for that doesn't mention Yugoslavia as a customer.

It was originally used with 3.7" AA guns (it was delivered with those in the early '50s), later it was added to SA-2 batteries as an additional radar. In the mid '70s it was moved to coastal defense where it was used until mid-80s, when it was finally retired. AFAIK last one operational was modified to be used as a civilian meteorological radar and was used until early 2000s...

But I was talking about automated system of AD data sharing and control. Yugoslavia first used Soviet ones (ASPD-1), acquired with SA-2s in ~1962), but it was not fully automated system and had a lot of limitations, as it could operate with only few Soviet made radars and was very labor intensive, preventing anything even close to real time data sharing. So in the late 60s Swedish made ASURI was acquired and adopted as AS-70. It included very good NATRAP narrow band radar picture transmitter that could link up the 5 observation radar and send their picture to up the 60 receivers in real time and could be used with practically any radar. Then Marconi made AD information sharing and control system was acquired (designated AS-74) as a part of S-600 radar series acquisition. In the '80s it was supplemented by domestic AS-84, which managed to integrate newly acquired AN/TPS-63 and 70 radars.

 

Edited May 29 by bojan

[DB]

Hmm. wonder if that was developed from LINESMAN. It sounds rather more like UKADGE, but I have no idea how much of that was working and when.

[bojan]

Unfortunately above is all I can reliably confirm.  Very little was published on topic locally and practically nothing in foreign literature. Even googling parts of system designations gives zero feedback in foreign sources, indicating that those are either local designations or that it is just such obscure topic that there is no data about it on the net.

Edited May 29 by bojan

[Sardaukar]

SAM Simulator should be fun, not sure how accurate it is, though:

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

 

[bojan]

Pretty accurate, through missing some modes as those would be difficult to implement with only single player.

[Yama]

On 5/20/2023 at 2:56 AM, bojan said:

Hawk was more advanced system (semi-active radar homing) and was probably "best" AD system from introduction up at least introduction of Kub (SA-6) or maybe even Buk (SA-11), but it had some issues, like relatively low system redundancy, low MTBF for radar before I-Hawk was introduced in the '70s and huge price*. AD systems are really, really hard to compare since change of even single radar can introduce big changes in the overall  performances.

*In the mid-70s single Bn of Hawk cost about same as 3-Bn regiment of SA-3.

^Although the video implies that Finns were 'forced' to acquire missiles from Soviet Union (options were SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6), constraint was largely financial: Hawk was much too expensive, and there just weren't that many other Western options. 

One thing which strikes me in SA-3 presentation is how laborious it was to prepare missiles for firing. Must have taken a good while to reload the launchers.

Although website name 'Ausairpower' probably causes allergic reactions to many, Carlo's articles of Soviet AD systems are quite good:

https://www.ausairpower.net/sams-iads.html

[DB]

Carlo Kopp? It will be a long time before I give him any click-throughs. Although I suppose given how poor many of today's "expert" views are, he'd probably come out as above average quality.

[Burncycle360]

To be fair, content aside his presentation is top notch (contrast with sparky's geocities / angelfire)

 

[Sardaukar]

His presentation is good, sometimes his facts too, but his conclusions often not so much...

 

[Yama]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:26 AM, DB said:

Carlo Kopp? It will be a long time before I give him any click-throughs. 

Admit it, your 'long time' was 10 minutes at most 

Carlo is much misunderstood. He is not a pro-Russian troll or fanboi (quite the contrary). Rather, he is an extreme Douhetist (see the quote on front page), and believes that aeroplanes must be as big and heavy as possible, to be effective. His favourite combat aircraft are things like B-17, P-38, F-15, Su-27, F-22 and most notably, F-111. He opposes F-35 because it's a threat to F-22. For some reason, he doesn't think that F-35 or Super Hornet are 'big enough', although they're of similar size than F-15. When your brain learns to filter out the dogmatic anti-F-18/35 slant, his articles become much more readable and useful.

[DB]

Nope, I didn't go to his site. His assertions regarding the progression of US military aircraft designs were absurd, and until someone tells me he's exited his version of GlennSpace, I don't see any point in wasting time on him. Even the perfect thrashing that one of the Super Hornet program managers gave to the "just upgrade the A-6 again" crowd gained no traction. He also seemed to be arguing that if Aus. couldn't get F-22, then it shouldn't have anything.

My opinion of him predates the F-35, but it's an easy target for generating clicks, so I'm not surprised he's a hater.