SA-12 / S-300V Gladiator and Giant

[MechPilot524]

The SA-11 in DCS World is unique for one reason above all else, in my opinion: it is essentially a Medium-Range SAM that incorporates TELARs. All other Medium-Range SAMs are static (eg HAWK, SA-2) and the SA-6 leans closer to being a Tactical SAM and still uses TELs guided by the STRAIGHT FLUSH anyway.

As a mission creator, I would also appreciate having a SAM available that is higher capability than an SA-11, but can still redeploy.

Many DCS players are familiar with the SA-10, the S-300PS. However, many may not have heard of a project which arose in tandem for the Soviet Army: the S-300V. I myself had not heard of it until I downloaded the High Digit SAMs mod some time ago.

 

Background

Whereas the S-300P met the requirements of the Soviet air defense forces, which only specified faster deployment than the SA-2 in contrast to other requirements with respect to missile tracking and performance, the Soviet army wanted a system that was CBRN-resistant, mounted on treads, and capable of engaging ballistic missiles as well as maneuvering aircraft. They also wanted the S-300 to achieve similar deployment times to the SA-6, being ready for action minutes after coming to a halt. As the Army's requirements differed most significantly from those of the Air Defense Forces and Navy, the S-300V was born: though arising from the same concept and being of the same generation as the SA-10, I think it's accurate to consider the S-300V/SA-12 to be a different beast entirely.

The S-300V, and its Chinese counterpart HQ-18, are in service with a handful of countries today including Russia, China, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Iran, with Russian S-300Vs seeing service in Syria. Russia, Egypt and Venezuela use the S-300VM (SA-23), an upgraded version.

Left to Right: GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT TELAR, GRILL SCREEN Radar

Implementation into DCS

I wish to see all elements of a standard SA-12 battery incorporated: the command vehicle, both GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARS, and all three radar types: GRILL PAN for target tracking and designation, BILL BOARD for general search, and HIGH SCREEN to improve capability against ballistic missiles. The multiple radars is for similar reasons as to why we have BIG BIRD, CLAM SHELL, and TIN SHIELD all available for the DCS SA-10; each have their own specialization and mission creators can set the battery's capabilities in part by incorporating various radars into the system. As these missiles likely have long reload times, I would also like to see the Loader-Launcher vehicles present and perhaps their presence would boost the rearm speed of adjacent TELARs either in or out of their group. The Loader-Launchers could also act as TELs, firing with the assistance of nearby TELARs. There are many SAMs in DCS which would have them but don't - it is unprecedented, and could be perceived as less important for the sake of DCS, so I recognize that as a stretch.

The GLADIATOR and GIANT TELARs guide their own missiles to the target semi-actively via the illuminators atop the masts. They receive support from another radar to receive target designations, so a command vehicle and a single radar such as GRILL PAN can orchestrate an engagement against several targets by designating different targets to different TELARs. In turn, the BILL BOARD acts similarly to a BIG BIRD giving large scan volume at the regiment level; and the HIGH SCREEN will focus on ballistic missiles. Some sources say the TELARS cannot engage targets without the GRILL PAN, others say they can; I imagine a DCS incarnation would allow them to but with difficulty, and this behavior is already present on other SAMs in DCS.

The range of GLADIATOR is about 35nmi and GIANT about 50nmi. The reality is probably more blurry than that, but nevertheless in DCS it could boast a range greater than older systems such as SA-2 or smaller contemporaries such as SA-11. Its range is said to be roughly on par with the SA-10, although its usage of semi-active missile guidance instead of PESA (as found on FLAP LID) might still manifest some important differences in DCS.

Although it was developed with a higher focus on the anti-ballistic missile role than the S-300P was initially, the SA-12 is certainly still very capable against aircraft.

Left to Right: HIGH SCREEN ATBM Radar, BILL BOARD Search Radar, GLADIATOR TELAR, GIANT loader-launcher, GRILL PAN Engagement Radar

Benefits of Adding the SA-12 to DCS

I enjoy the SA-12 featured in the High Digit SAMs mod, but that is a mod. I think there is still significant benefit for the SA-12 being added to the base game, particularly for environments which do not use mods. Having a fourth option for a "long range SAM", with different typical deployments and setups than SA-10, SA-5 and Patriot, would make this SAM unique among the others currently in DCS. In particular, mission editors could tune the system's ability to engage objects at various ranges by adjusting how many GIANT TELARs are in a group. It is also of similar era to the SA-10 and SA-11 so would fit in well for the setting.

I could see the SA-12 being of interest due to the new "ARM Evasion" behavior, as this battery could relocate when threatened. In the future Dynamic Campaign, SA-12s would be of interest as they could easily relocate based on the movement of the front lines, and I have no doubt that mission creators could use a relatively mobile strategic SAM system today. While SA-10s could be set up to do this (I believe Eagle Dynamics has said that is the intent for S-300P?) the SA-12 is certainly more oriented to this sort of action, capable of relocating more quickly than an SA-10, and would cover a larger area than the SA-11. Being a tracked system rather than a wheeled system, it can also appear in more austere locations.

Lastly, it has been some time since a new SAM was added to the DCS core game - about two years since the SA-5 was added. We've only seen the FIRE CAN + KS-19, technicals with ZU-23-2s, and LPWS C-RAM added since then, and a facelift for the SA-10. All are lovely additions but not as impactful as a new SAM system to fly against. So I think the community would enjoy having a new type of SAM.

A GLADIATOR TELAR in the field, in the process of deploying its canisters and radar.

Shout-out to Militavia who recently made an excellent video about the origins of the S-300P family and mentioned the S-300V branching from the main S-300 project.

 

So, please consider adding the SA-12 GLADIATOR and GIANT to the DCS Core!

Video of the S-300VM during a live-fire exercise: 

 

Edited August 17, 2024 by MechPilot524
fixed small formatting errors with image captions

[Northstar98]

+1 I definitely agree with completing the roster of SAM systems. I agree with everything said and definitely agree with your justifications.

I do have a couple of points of contention though, albeit only one is relevant to the S-300V (or its variants) specifically.

Firstly, while it's been a while since the S-200M released, in all that time we don't even have the bare minimum of battery components implemented - only a launcher and a fire-control radar. No other battery components have been implemented - be they command and control elements (for which an OdAZ-828 trailer would suffice), generators, or critically - appropriate acquisition radars (with it being stuck with radars wholly inappropriate for it (the P-19 is associated with the S-125 and as an EWR for numerous Army air defence systems, the Tin Shield is primarily a general-purpose early-warning radar, otherwise it's assocated with the S-300).

The same is also true of the S-75M3 - again, only a fire-control radar and launcher, nothing else, though at least the P-19 doesn't neuter the system's range, unlike the S-200M. The missile also has incorrect artwork and is treated as though it's SARH, instead of command-guided (w/ half-lead, three-point and the elevated half-lead (K) guidance modes) like it should be.

Secondly, while you're absolutely right that the S-300V is perfectly capable against aircraft, we are lacking a BLUFOR threat (such as the MGM-52 Lance (or rather a conventional version) or the MGM-140 ATACAMS), would it not be wise to include an applicable threat, for a system more optimised against, said threats?

Edited August 17, 2024 by Northstar98

[ACS_Dev]

Unfortunately unlikely at this time.

[MechPilot524]

On 8/17/2024 at 6:15 AM, Northstar98 said:

+1 I definitely agree with completing the roster of SAM systems. I agree with everything said and definitely agree with your justifications.

I do have a couple of points of contention though, albeit only one is relevant to the S-300V (or its variants) specifically.

Firstly, while it's been a while since the S-200M released, in all that time we don't even have the bare minimum of battery components implemented - only a launcher and a fire-control radar. No other battery components have been implemented - be they command and control elements (for which an OdAZ-828 trailer would suffice), generators, or critically - appropriate acquisition radars (with it being stuck with radars wholly inappropriate for it (the P-19 is associated with the S-125 and as an EWR for numerous Army air defence systems, the Tin Shield is primarily a general-purpose early-warning radar, otherwise it's assocated with the S-300).

The same is also true of the S-75M3 - again, only a fire-control radar and launcher, nothing else, though at least the P-19 doesn't neuter the system's range, unlike the S-200M. The missile also has incorrect artwork and is treated as though it's SARH, instead of command-guided (w/ half-lead, three-point and the elevated half-lead (K) guidance modes) like it should be.

Secondly, while you're absolutely right that the S-300V is perfectly capable against aircraft, we are lacking a BLUFOR threat (such as the MGM-52 Lance (or rather a conventional version) or the MGM-140 ATACAMS), would it not be wise to include an applicable threat, for a system more optimised against, said threats?

 

Yes, I do agree that improving what we have modeled for existing SAM systems is helpful. Even in satellite imagery the Tall King is an unmistakable system. I also think though that having it, even if incorrect or incomplete, is still better than nothing at all; and the level of detail or historical accuracy to this degree would be lost on too many players for it to be considered priority.

I also agree that BLUFOR lacks the sort of thing that would harness a TBM mission; we could really use an equivalent to the Scud. Although in a more fictional scenario we could watch S-300Vs pick off Scuds, more attention should be paid to both factions having comparable capabilities as they existed so as not to leave gaps.

On 8/18/2024 at 9:50 PM, ACS_Dev said:

Unfortunately unlikely at this time.

I don't read Cyrillic, so I'm relying on Google Translate for this one... They're saying the "S-300B", which presumably refers to S-300V when romanized, is desired but not planned?

[ACS_Dev]

3 hours ago, MechPilot524 said:

Yes, I do agree that improving what we have modeled for existing SAM systems is helpful. Even in satellite imagery the Tall King is an unmistakable system. I also think though that having it, even if incorrect or incomplete, is still better than nothing at all; and the level of detail or historical accuracy to this degree would be lost on too many players for it to be considered priority.

I also agree that BLUFOR lacks the sort of thing that would harness a TBM mission; we could really use an equivalent to the Scud. Although in a more fictional scenario we could watch S-300Vs pick off Scuds, more attention should be paid to both factions having comparable capabilities as they existed so as not to leave gaps.

I don't read Cyrillic, so I'm relying on Google Translate for this one... They're saying the "S-300B", which presumably refers to S-300V when romanized, is desired but not planned?

I can't understand russian and likely never will, so I was using translate here as well.

I asked the question based on this comment, referring to the S-300V returning to LOMAC.

I could preach to the choir on this for hours. In a recent update eagle dynamics added the SM-6 to the game files, a SAM from 2013. This is beyond the timeframe of any of our existing modules yet they add it anyway. Meanwhile the most modern S-300 we have is more than 30 years older. I'll just leave it at that.

[Northstar98]

On 8/22/2024 at 10:53 AM, MechPilot524 said:

Yes, I do agree that improving what we have modeled for existing SAM systems is helpful. Even in satellite imagery the Tall King is an unmistakable system. I also think though that having it, even if incorrect or incomplete, is still better than nothing at all

Fair enough, I do agree.

On 8/22/2024 at 10:53 AM, MechPilot524 said:

and the level of detail or historical accuracy to this degree would be lost on too many players for it to be considered priority.

I'd probably agree with you most of the time. Most don't seem to care about the incosnistencies or incoherency much at all. The problem here though is that the lack of an appropriate acquisition radar significantly neuters the S-200M's range and means it's incapable of covering the same area that the real system should, essentially serving as a somewhat of a "nerf" (and we already have a way of setting maximum engagement ranges so if players wanted to "nerf" the S-200, they still could).

On 8/22/2024 at 2:35 PM, ACS_Dev said:

I could preach to the choir on this for hours. In a recent update eagle dynamics added the SM-6 to the game files, a SAM from 2013. This is beyond the timeframe of any of our existing modules yet they add it anyway. Meanwhile the most modern S-300 we have is more than 30 years older. I'll just leave it at that.

I'm going to go off-topic here but this is more of the same coherency problem that DCS has had since its inception. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much (if any) thought towards it, so we'll likely continue to see similar things.

With the SM-6, while its true that the latest carrier capable aircraft we have is from the early (though it used to be mid before ED changed it) 2000s, the configuration of CVNs 71-75 of the supercarrier ranges between 2008 - 2017 at the absolute earliest, except there's incoherency there because it's firing a Sea Sparrow variant from the early-ish 1980s)

The Arleigh Burke includes a liveries for ships that comprise of 3 different variants and 2 of those variants are new enough for SM-6 to be accurate (being from 2017 at the earliest). Ideally they'd split these variants up because if depicted in their earliest configuration they have different capabilities.

The Ticonderogas we have range from 2006 to 2012/2013 for the configuration they're in, so RIM-162A ESSM Block I and RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV is also accurate (along with the RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB, which would also apply to the Arleigh Burke).

See the spoiler below for the earliest entry date for the configuration depicted in DCS.

Spoiler

CVN 68 (Nimitz) [Roosevelt subclass]:

• CVN 71: 2013-
• CVN 72: 2017-
• CVN 73: 2008-
• CVN 74: 2015-
• CVN 75: 2012-

CG 47 Baseline 3:

• CG 60 -- 2009-

CG 47 Baseline 4:

• CG 65: 2007-
• CG 66: 2007-
• CG 67: 2009/2010-
• CG 68: 2006- (never received Phalanx Block 1B - retained Block 1A)
• CG 69: 2010/2011-
• CG 70: 2012/2013-
• CG 71: 2007-
• CG 72: 2010-
• CG 73: 2009-

Here though, the S-300V or V1 would be coherent with other eastern air defences (we do have ground based air defences introduced around the same timeframe) and assets.