S-300PMU-2 "SA-20B 'Gargoyle'" as modern counterpart to S-300PS "SA-10B"

[ACS_Dev]

As part of several years of research towards my projects I have developed a sort of "wish list" of more modern Russian systems to oppose our ~2005-era modules.

The S-300PS ("SA-10B") was a venerable system even at that time and more modern variations were in service with the Russian Military. It should not be the only representation of the diverse S-300 family within this game and I would like to propose the S-300PMU-2 as its modern alternative to be modeled in DCS.

System Comparison

The S-300PS is the first major variant of the S-300. Introduced in 1985, it was widely exported and is still in use today in some countries. In DCS it fires the 5V55R command-guided missile with a range of 45-75km.¹  Most DCS players will be familiar with it thus I won't get into much more detail.

The S-300PMU-2 is conversely the most modern variant of the S-300 (After which the S-400 came to be). It was introduced in 1997 and would be one of Russia's key AD assets in a peer conflict circa 2005. More than 10 years of development and improvements resulted in a complex that, though using the same basic structure format, is an entirely different beast than the S-300PS.

As part of the S-300 family, both systems share the same types of components but the vehicles themselves are different.

The S-300PS uses:
54K6E command post.
30N6 "Flap Lid" FCR (45km engagement range, can engage 6 targets by tracking 12 missiles)
64N6 "Big Bird" SR (260km detection range)
5P85D/S TELs (using a wired connection and thus needing to be located close to the radars in clusters of 3 due to smart/dumb TEL relationship)
5V55R missile (uses command guidance with a 45-75km range)

The S-300PMU-2 uses:
54K6E2 or 55K6E  battery command post (w
30N6E2 "Tomb Stone" FCR (150km engagement range, can engage 36 targets and track 72 missiles)
96L6E SR (300km range)
5P58SE TELs (using datalink or wired, much looser co-location constraints and all "smart")
48N6E2 missile (uses Track Via Missile guidance with an alleged 200km range)
54K6E2 or 55K6E battery command post
83M6E2 system command post (can also integrate command of other systems like SA-5 and SA-10B)
64N6E2 battalion SR (600km range)

Can ED model this?

The missile in question, the 48N6E2, has been in the game for a long time as part of the armament for one of the russian warships. So, to an extent, they already have. If modeling the 48N6E2 was out of the question I would have advocated for the SA-20A, which has more component commonality with the S-300PS, but this is not the case. The 48N6E2's younger brother, the 48N6E3, has already at least partially replaced it.

Why would this system be useful?

The S-300PMU-2 would be the cornerstone of a major IADS in a way that the S-300PS simply cannot. The S-300PS' much shorter range and positioning limitations make it less potent and also constrain the depth of any defense under its umbrella. A proper IADS would comprise of a long-range system covering medium and short range systems. With the SA-20B's greater range, this protected area and thus the physical depth of these layers would be greatly increased. Additionally, with the exponentially larger number of simultaneous possible engagements, the resilience of the system against massed attacks would force more creative thinking from mission planners. Finally, the new guidance method would be a thrilling twist for SEAD nerds like myself.

Between the S-300PS and S-300PMU-2 we will have almost 30 years of Russian, Chinese and Iranian long-range air defense systems covered, spanning the timelines of most of ED's most popular modules. This, in addition to complementary systems like the SA-17 and SA-22, will fill out any needed AD network.

Sources:
https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300PMU-1_(SA-20_Gargoyle)_Russian_Long-Range_Air_Defense_Missile_System

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/S-300P_(SA-10_Grumble)_Russian_8x8_Long-Range_Surface-to-Air_Missile_System

Thanks for reading.

[Kvek]

As Acs_dev said, the missile and the radar logic are already done (kirov class unit), ED only has to make the 3d moddels.

SAM systems are almost abandoned on DCS; no new systems for years, SA5 wrong search radar, track through terrain, very basic logic (fire at max range, never turn off prevently trying to evade a ARM, etc), totally independent functioning(no iads), they turn on the search radar because they "sense" there is a hostile in the area, so why bother with EWR units, because they dont have any function on SAM behavior.

Maps focus on custom churches, palaces, hotels but SAM sites are totally ignored, or when depicted are on hills or blocked by terrain, structure or trees. The few maps that have sam sites, they are totally basic, zero custumization. Sinai is kind of an exception. That could be partially fixed with static objects like revetments, elevated ground or platforms, but we have nothing usefull.

Time ago ED released max interception range for SAMs. It could be useful, but if the target leave this "new max range" after missile launch the SAM system break the lock and trash the missile. So, totally useless.

Recently they released ARM detection, but some sam systems stop firing but keep emmiting so harms hit them, other systems turn off but never turn on again, other system never turn off. The probability of detection is set to skill, but that is a terrible choice, it should be sey by the user. Again, totally useless.

We need asap that ED focus on military things like SAM systems.

[Northstar98]

I mean, I could get behind a new S-300 version. Though personally I'd go for a domestic S-300PM-1/2 system, I guess it doesn't really matter though, the domestic version is just a bit more applicable to DCS' maps IMO. DCS also doesn't respect the more limited arrangement of the TELs, the 5P85D does not need the 5P85S in order to fire (as if they're all "smart"), nor are the limited cable lengths modelled.

We are lacking functionality to even deploy the S-300PS as it would IRL, taking advantage of its self-propelled nature. Though the longer-ranged missiles of the S-300PM-1/PMU-1 and S-300PM-1/PMU-2 wouldn't go amiss.

DCS also lacks the ability for missile batteries to operate autonomously from the command and control element, the real thing can do this, but with degraded acquisition capability (particularly against medium/high-altitude targets)

Though FWIW:

Spoiler

On 4/19/2024 at 7:19 PM, ACS_Dev said:

The S-300PS uses:
54K6E command post.
30N6 "Flap Lid" FCR (45km engagement range, can engage 6 targets by tracking 12 missiles)
64N6 "Big Bird" SR (260km detection range)
...
5V55R missile (uses command guidance with a 45-75km range)

 

The S-300PS doesn't use the 30N6 (despite how commonly it's quoted) or the 64N6 and the 5V55R is only command guided in its midcourse phase - it has a TVM terminal phase - the 5V55K and 5V55KD (which the S-300PS is backwards-compatible with) are the command-guided only versions.

The 30N6 also doesn't have the NATO reporting name "Flap Lid", instead it's "Tombstone".

The 30N6 RPN [Tombstone] is used for the S-300PM-1 and PM-2 systems, with the 30N6E (E1/E2) being an export derivative for the S-300PMU-1/PMU-2 Favorit [SA-20A/B Gargoyle].

The 30N6-1 is used on Petr Velikey for its S-300FM [SA-N-20A/B] system (which should be firing the 48N6 or 48N6M missile - the 48N6E2 is an export derivative of the latter), the 30N6E1 is also used on Type 051C destroyers [Luzhou DDG] for its S-300FM [SA-N-20B], firing the 48N6E2 missile.

The fire-control radar for the S-300PS (and PM) is the 5N63S RPN [Flap Lid-B]. This radar is shorter-ranged than the 30N6 series, meaning the extended range of the 48N6 missile series cannot be utilised fully (which is why the S-300PM has a shorter engagement range than the S-300PM-1, despite both firing the 48N6 missile).

Incidentally, there are a couple of external, physical differences between the 2 radars, one is the different data link antenna for communication with the PBU and the 30N6 series has 4 prominent, rectangular protrusions below the array face, which the 5N63S doesn't have (I'm also fairly sure there's a second antenna attached to the rear F2 cabin, for data link communications with the launchers, which cannot be seen on the 5N63S, which only uses a wired connection between the launchers):

 

5N63S:

Note the lack of rectangular protrusions below the array face compared to the 30N6 series further below:

Note the more sparse data link antenna.

 

30N6/30N6E(E1/E2):

Note the 4 rectangular protusions below the array face and the different data link antenna.

Apart from the vehicle it's mounted to, the 30N6 is externally identical to the 92N6/92N6E [Gravestone] radar used in the S-400 Triumf [SA-21A/B Growler]. I'm not sure of all the specifications, but the 92N6 most likely has a longer-range for the 48N6DM (48N6E3 for export) missiles. It likely also has more target and missile channels (which makes sense for the 9M96 missiles).

 

Similarly, the 64N6 RLO [Big Bird-C] is also used for the S-300PM-1 and PM-2 systems, with the 64N6E (E1/E2) being an export derivative for the S-300PMU-1 and PMU-2 Favorit. The radar actually used for the S-300PS/PM is actually the 5N64S RLO [Big Bird-B]. While I'm not sure on the practical differences, there are a number of external physical differences - the antenna is a different shape with a different arrangement of the elements and the feeds are different and are no-longer offset. What we have in-game is fortunately the right radar - the 5N64S, not a 64N6 (or some 64N6E version) and, unlike what the model name suggests, not a 5N64K either.

Here are some images:

5N64K/KV (the V version includes digital MTI capability):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr8-afHXQAEDORS?format=jpg&name=medium

Note how it's not mounted on a trailer (rather a pallet) and that the F8 cabin (used for processing and control) is detached.

5N64S (what we have in-game):

 

http://taihangsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/00723i1tly1gcyhnr6mfgj30sg0iytxb-768x512.jpg

Note how all 3 cabins (F6 - the radar antenna, F7 transmitter/receiver and F8 operator/control and processing cabin are all on the same trailer). The 5N64S retains the digital MTI mode of the 5N64KV.

 

64N6/64N6E/64N6E1/E2:

Note the different shape to the array (much more rectangular), the centralised, fully-enclosed feeds

http://taihangsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/00723i1tly1gcygaxrikqj312w0rt4qq.jpg

Note how there are only 2 cabins, compared to 3 of the 5N64S.

This 91N6/91N6E radar for the S-400 Triumf [SA-21A/B Growler] is externally identical, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 91N6/91N6E had greater range to better utilise the 40N6/40N6E and 48N6DM/48N6E3 missiles.

 

As for the 54K6E Baikal - the S-300PS actually uses the 5K56S PBU, though they both appear externally identical to each other (it could just be a redesignation, which may also be the case with the 5N66M and 76N6 NVO radars).

 

On 10/13/2024 at 4:11 PM, Kvek said:

As Acs_dev said, the missile and the radar logic are already done (kirov class unit), ED only has to make the 3d moddels.

SAM systems are almost abandoned on DCS; no new systems for years, SA5 wrong search radar, track through terrain, very basic logic (fire at max range, never turn off prevently trying to evade a ARM, etc), totally independent functioning(no iads), they turn on the search radar because they "sense" there is a hostile in the area, so why bother with EWR units, because they dont have any function on SAM behavior.

Maps focus on custom churches, palaces, hotels but SAM sites are totally ignored, or when depicted are on hills or blocked by terrain, structure or trees. The few maps that have sam sites, they are totally basic, zero custumization. Sinai is kind of an exception. That could be partially fixed with static objects like revetments, elevated ground or platforms, but we have nothing usefull.

Time ago ED released max interception range for SAMs. It could be useful, but if the target leave this "new max range" after missile launch the SAM system break the lock and trash the missile. So, totally useless.

Recently they released ARM detection, but some sam systems stop firing but keep emmiting so harms hit them, other systems turn off but never turn on again, other system never turn off. The probability of detection is set to skill, but that is a terrible choice, it should be sey by the user. Again, totally useless.

We need asap that ED focus on military things like SAM systems.

Off topic, but yeah completely agree with everything here.

The lack of IADS functionality (or even just AI sharing targets between different groups via appropriate units) means you cannot even deploy an S-300PS as it would be set up IRL (i.e. with a single 5N64S RLO and 5K56S PBU) controlling 2-6 missile batteries as a single regiment/brigade. You have to have the RLO and PBU in the same group, which means you can't relocate them independently (and shoot-and-scoot mechanics are a main feature of the S-300PS, having a rapid stowage/deployment time well within the timeframe of a mission). Well, I guess first we would need a 5S116/17/18-equipped MAZ-7410 tractor and the the 5N64S RLO would need to support being towed around too.

The map thing though really irks me though - this is supposed to be a combat flight simulator, air defence sites are directly applicable to what we do here. And yet, they're seemingly an afterthought, if they're a thought at all - only a single map really does them justice (Sinai). We also have an absoluteluy tiny amount of EWRs, despite having an appropriate model for a very prolific one for over a decade now. You mentioned the S-200 having the wrong acquisition radar, which significantly impacts range, the S-75V also has the same issue (though at least the practical implications aren't as severe).

Edited October 15, 2024 by Northstar98

[Gierasimov]

Syria map was the first to bring SAM revetments and I am glad it did, it's presence in Sinai was the community effort so that's also nice, Normandy 2 has got some battle positions (not SAM ofc) so all this shows it's possible. Let's see what the new maps will bring (like rumored Germany map). 

IADS and proper logic, as well as separation of command / EWR / TEL, is for sure prerequisite for the upcoming Dynamic Campaign Engine, otherwise it will be one more pain points of the new product. 

As for the updated version of S-300, I am all in favor, although the time it took to refresh the current version makes me think that it would not happen. Still waiting for 2021 announced Pantsir.

[CarbonFox]

Agreeing with the author. Both the SA-20A and B would be nice adds. A particular variant I still want in DCS though is the S-300V (SA-12A/B Gladiator/Giant).

[IndyNavy]

You can add these via HighDigitSams: https://github.com/Auranis/HighDigitSAMs

[Whiskey11]

On 12/21/2024 at 9:59 PM, IndyNavy said:

You can add these via HighDigitSams: https://github.com/Auranis/HighDigitSAMs

And as great of a mod as HDSM is, the problem still remains that you cannot join a multiplayer game without also having the mod, which means your community is going to be seriously limited.  DCS needs a multiplayer mod temporary download functionality or a way to dynamically load mods into the game while it is running and an option to download certain mods which have been "vetted" by the DCS community for HDSM to really take over.

The sad part is that ED could implement the S-300 PMU-2 quite easily into the game as the missile is in the game, the radar is in the game, and the TEL is in the game.  They could even use the 3D model of the S-300PS and 98% of the DCS community wouldn't notice how it's wrong.  A few of us with SAMtism would notice, but the vast majority wouldn't.

The same is roughly true of the Patriot PAC-2 variants which are mostly the same launcher/missile body as the PAC-1 we have in game with better range and guidance.  The currently modeled AN/MPQ-53 supports PAC-2 missiles and the PAC-2 GEM+ gets you to ~2003... 

And the same is true of the NASAM's ability to fire AIM-9's... and the SA-11 being able to guide SA-6 missiles... and the Tin Shield from the SA-5 not being able to be used with the SA-10... most of these changes are single line code changes and would take a programmer a day to accomplish... maybe not the SA-11/SA-6 cross play, but most of the unit dependency ones.

[IndyNavy]

We have it in our server no problem. Just gotta do a little hand holding to get folks to install it: https://discord.gg/nsVystXf7T