correct as-is SA-10 Harm autodefense

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, tripod3 said:

Chizh just said that they changed FM for S-300 to be more optimized for far intercept. He said that they will adjust this issue for more effectively HARM intercepts 

I guess this was in russian part of forum, link?

IMHO: before I get accused for derailing the topic for 3rd time in 4 days (LOL) I do believe that we still need full fidelity SAMs and IADS networks. It would be nice if the technical persons reply instead of forum moderators, since I am very sure they know what I am talking about.

 

[tripod3]

22 minutes ago, okopanja said:

I guess this was in russian part of forum, link?

IMHO: before I get accused for derailing the topic for 3rd time in 4 days (LOL) I do believe that we still need full fidelity SAMs and IADS networks. It would be nice if the technical persons reply instead of forum moderators, since I am very sure they know what I am talking about.

 

Yes

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/140802-obsuzhdenie-oficialnyh-novostej-3/?do=findComment&comment=5315830

[okopanja]

5 minutes ago, tripod3 said:

Yes

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/140802-obsuzhdenie-oficialnyh-novostej-3/?do=findComment&comment=5315830

Ahh, typical Chizh Haiku poetry.

[okopanja]

Found another issue with S-300 launching logic: if 2 targets are present designated 1 and 2, it will launch 4 missiles per target sequentially:

1. it consumed too many missiles launched 1, 1, 1, 1 and then 2,2,2,2, where first missiles.

2. it should have launched in overlapping mode for greater PK. Better choice would have been 1,2,1,2. This is also better from the point of employing against HARMs

 

 

Edited January 6, 2024 by okopanja

[Whiskey11]

On 10/26/2023 at 7:00 AM, okopanja said:

According to the official source, out of 218 Tomahawks launched during 1999 war in Yugoslavia (includes all variants and launch methods), 52 were shot down by PVO, which corresponds to slightly less than 24%. Not a greate efficiency, but consider that PVO had nowhere near full coverage and consisted of legacy SAMs:

- SA-3 Neva (for this one we know its capable of detecting and tracking targets with much lower RCS than above)

- SA-6 KUB

- Giraffe + Bofors.

- Strela-10

- Strela-2M manpads

- Selection of non-radar directed 20/23mm anti aircraft guns

 

I don't know your source for the interception rate of Tomahawk's during the war in Yugoslavia, but taken at face value, sure.  It's not impossible to do so with MANPADS or other SAM sites as has been proven in Ukraine with the Iskander, a similar missile fired by Russia.  That's the problem with subsonic cruise missiles.  The discussion here is about HARM, which has a QUARTER the RCS value of a Tomahawk.    

The SA-3 is not capable of detecting and tracking targets with much lower RCS with it's radar.  The SA-3 did not see the F117 until it was nearly directly overhead and had its bomb bay open putting it in the worst RCS configuration possible.  The long range EWR's gave ample warning it was coming, and NATO had been flying these routes night after night after night. That's not surprising, really.  

 

Quote

On the other side disproportional number of HARMs were launched with rather modest hit hit rates compared to the number of hit radars.

Also I would like to point out that in their good times Soviets were designing and already testing new variants of missiles and SAM while during the initial deployment of original versions.

Example of this include: SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, and also SA-10 and S-11, again one of the arguments not to consider that 1970s nuke balistic and cruise missiles was a permanet requirements target.

It should be also noted that e.g. SA-6 and SA-11 are interoperable, in the sense that SA-6 launcher can be guided by another SA-11 launcher, on distances exceeding several kilometers. All of this just to give you a hint on how much our SAMs are under-modeled.

I would prefer for ED to freeze present SAM situation and not respond to case-to-case demands to tweak parameters, but rather remodel the SAMs one by one (not talking about having fancy 3D models). In this sense I would start with the oldest SAMs such as SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6, since there is plenty of documentation on their features and capabilities that is already available from public sources as well as reliable accounts and testimonies of war time usages.

Talking about hit rates with HARM is stupid.  Hitting a radar with a HARM is a bonus.  Getting the radar to shut off long enough for forces to do their job is the primary goal.  That means you are going to fire A LOT of HARM and have few radars destroyed, but how many aircraft did those SAM sites shoot down?

I'm well aware of the S-300's history and the eight variants of missiles the S-300PT/PS variants had.  The initial roll out of the S-300PT used command guided missiles and progressed to SARH missiles.  It isn't until the 5V55R that the TVM missile was successfully deployed with limited success.  So limited, they reverted part of the flight of the missile back to Command Guidance to deal with lower flying targets.

The SA-11 was not designed with the intention of intercepting ballistic missiles of any range.  The Buk lacked the range to make this practical and the Soviet/Russian Army already had the S-300V series of S-300's to accomplish that goal. 

Pretty much all of the PVO systems are interoperable with each other through the various EWR/"Datalink" (term used loosely) communication masts.  Same is true of the Soviet/Russian Army.  The two systems (PVO and Army) never spoke to each other in the Soviet Era, and it's only been recently that the PVO and Russian Army have begun seeing the importance of a true IADS with all of their systems operating together.  That's why the S-400 and Pantsir were JOINT development projects.

As for ED, while I don't disagree that the SAM game needs a major overhaul, they need to fix what is presently broken.  That includes a decent chunk of the new S-300 having some serious issues.  Restore our gameplay to what it was in 2.8, then start working on ground up overhauls of the system.

 

To summarize, I still DO NOT believe the S-300PS using the 5V55R missile is capable of intercepting HARM at any successful rate given the design requirements and the book I cited.  The book specifically calls out the RCS value that the S-300PMU could engage and is written by East German air defense operators who were trained on the system.         

[okopanja]

58 minutes ago, Whiskey11 said:

I don't know your source for the interception rate of Tomahawk's during the war in Yugoslavia, but taken at face value, sure.  It's not impossible to do so with MANPADS or other SAM sites as has been proven in Ukraine with the Iskander, a similar missile fired by Russia.  That's the problem with subsonic cruise missiles.  The discussion here is about HARM, which has a QUARTER the RCS value of a Tomahawk.    

After the war the Serbian Ministry of Defense did disclose the full list of taken casualties and scored hits. The information on downed Tomahawks comes from that source.

58 minutes ago, Whiskey11 said:

The SA-3 is not capable of detecting and tracking targets with much lower RCS with it's radar.

Untrue, both search radar and targeting radar did see the target. Targeting radar locked the target on 3rd attempt.

58 minutes ago, Whiskey11 said:

The SA-3 did not see the F117 until it was nearly directly overhead and had its bomb bay open putting it in the worst RCS configuration possible.

Again untrue:

- the pair of F-117A attacked (unsuccessfully) that evening Anti-Aircraft Defense command post in Rakovica, 48km/25nm away from the location of SAM.

- at the time of hit F-114A was 14km from SAM.

58 minutes ago, Whiskey11 said:

The long range EWR's gave ample warning it was coming, and NATO had been flying these routes night after night after night.

Untrue: EWRs did not detect the F-117 flight at any time. As for repeated routes: you may want to investigate about "Elvira" and what role it had in the stealthiness of F-117.

After many years the case was declassified and the book published by colonel Slavisa Golubic titled "PAD NOĆNOG SOKOLA". Colonel Golubović was an officer in 3rd r.d. of 250 rocket brigade at the time of the event. The book is a chronicle of activities of this unit during the war and includes detailed accounts of downing of F-16 as well.

While preparing the material for the book, he has interviewed the crew members and obtained the signed testimonies of all participants. It also includes the parameters of the F-117 flight and explicit statement that HQ brigade (owning the EWRs you mention) did not provide any information on the F-117 flight. In fact there is chapter of the book addressing all of the untruths and half-truths published during the years on internet.

In order not to repeat myself kindly read following topic, where I translated an excerpt from the book. The book itself is expected to be translated into English.

Edited October 30, 2023 by okopanja