SA-19 too deadly?

[JB3DG]

So a couple times while playing various campaign missions....I order the SEAD flights in and they let off their AGM-88s at the SA-19s stationed around the target. And ill be damned....the SA-19s shoot the HARMs down! is this....accurate to RW?

[OutOnTheOP]

SA19? Probably not; I think HARM is too small a radar return. SA15, though, is generally considered capable of it (though I believe ED made the decision that the radar return was too small for it, as well. SA15 is really better against cruise missiles and big 2000 lb GBUs)

 

The early 2S6 is certainly not capable of it; the laser fuse wasn't capable of reliably detecting such small targets, so the missile would've passed by without ever detonating. Newer missiles have improved fuzes

[blahdy]

9M311 will have very hard time intercepting HARM.

 

Also, both 9M311 and 57E6 do not have guided maneuvers while their booster stage is burning. Only after booster rocket falls off do they receive guidance commands. This kind of limits engagement geometry options on high speed pop-up PGM targets..

 

In DCS however, 9M311 currently maneuvers even with booster stage attached and seems to use PN rather than SACLOS :)

[Revelation]

Well according to docs released by the Russians, the SA-19 can in fact target and shoot down HARMs. I have not seen anything giving specifics on how reliable it is or their kill vs miss ratio.

 

*EDIT*

In fact I was watching a video presentation of the SA-19 one day and they stated that the SA-19 could target GPS and Laser guided bombs as well.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Revelation

[blahdy]

It can certainly target and shoot at it. As far as actually intercepting it, pk is questionable IMO.

 

Tor on the other hand, has monopulse array with greater accuracy, with mean angular tracking error that's over 6 times smaller than baseline SA-19.. I'd put my money on the Tor over Tunguska for shooting down HARMs. :P

Edited August 15, 2012 by blahdy

[zzzspace]

So a couple times while playing various campaign missions....I order the SEAD flights in and they let off their AGM-88s at the SA-19s stationed around the target. And ill be damned....the SA-19s shoot the HARMs down! is this....accurate to RW?

 

I've seen the same thing. I thought the Tunguska couldn't do this any more in DCSw (except navalised SA-19 system, which does it all the time to ASMs), so I immediately checked the AMCI to make sure that's what I saw. And it was a perfect head to head 9M331 to AGM88 kill. So there does exist a potential, a much less probable potential than before, asin FC2.1 I Tunguska regularly killed ALARMs, but it can still do this, but apparently only rarely.

 

I saw this only in the past couple of days, so I may still have the ACMI. I'll check.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zzzspace

[maturin]

For sure the Tunguska can take down Kh-58s (in DCS) reliably. Are those bigger than HAARMs?

[zzzspace]

Found it, 9M331 from SA-19 tracks and kills incoming AGM-88 HARM.

 

There was no visible wavering tracking changes within the trail the SA-19 within the ACMI.

[blahdy]

9M311 always has been able to intercept ARMs (since FC2 & DCS BS 1.x) in game..

 

The only things they changed in recent DCS builds (during DCS A-10C beta) was Tor and S-300 no longer being able to engage HARMs. S-300 can still engage Kh-58, Kh-31P, etc, but it will ignore HARM and get killed by it.

 

Tor will also ignore it, so the only thing to defend S-300 from HARM is Tunguska at the moment (which in reality, Tunguska would have much more difficult time to shoot down HARMs, as opposed to Tor..).

[zzzspace]

9M311 always has been able to intercept ARMs (since FC2 & DCS BS 1.x) in game..

 

The only things they changed in recent DCS builds (during DCS A-10C beta) was Tor and S-300 no longer being able to engage HARMs. S-300 can still engage Kh-58, Kh-31P, etc, but it will ignore HARM and get killed by it.

 

Tor will also ignore it, so the only thing to defend S-300 from HARM is Tunguska at the moment (which in reality, Tunguska would have much more difficult time to shoot down HARMs, as opposed to Tor..).

 

Indeed. I also found a second instance of a head-to-head with a HARM and an SA-19, except in this case the SAM went close down the HARMs right side, as it was still trying to turn in on it, but it didn't detonate, it just crossed it's path immediately behind the HARM's butt, and kept on going. (and the 9M331 does follow a PN path)

 

But it was a very close miss on the ACMI, so this indicates maybe the warhead model on the SA-19 blows frag in a cone in front of itself maybe? As that would explain why the ACMI images I've posted above have the HARM dead, but still some distance from the 9M331 that killed it.

[USAFMTL]

I wonder if the 9M331 modeled in the game is the -M1 version. The -M1 is the imporved system that can intercept cruise missiles. The 9M331 itself was modeled after the Russian Navy's CIWS system. So I can see why it knocks HARM's and ALARMS out of the sky. I think one of the tactics for WW drivers when an S-19 is in the AO is to ripple fire 2 HARMS.

[zzzspace]

USAFMTL, looong time, no see. :)

 

Here's that second crossing engagement.

 

There were two SA-19s in that wedge of armor, and as you can see the HARM was aiming for the SA-19 on the other side of the wedge, to the one that fired at it.

 

It seems it was this slight resulting crossing angle that prevented a successful engagement. In my first set of images, the HARM was aiming for the SA-19 which killed it, so no crossing angle in that one.

 

So it seems that the SA-19 system is not struggling with the tracking of the harm, it is struggling with navigating a missile onto it quickly enough, so I expect as the angle departs from zero the chances of a hit drop away fast, and that's why a hit is fairly rare.

[USAFMTL]

ZZZ

 

Hey man how the heck are you? Got your sound pack by the way.....awesome work.

 

 

That is the key to taking down an SA-19, detection time. (I know DUH) :D

 

They may track the HARM but the law of physics is against the SAM on a snapshot engagment. I would suspect that a majority of the intercepts were in fact snapshots and lots of luck. But the ripple HARM tactic fixes that too.

Edited August 15, 2012 by USAFMTL

[Blacknemisis]

I dont know about the SA-19 but I was reading yesterday in Flight Journal Magazine they were talking about do we really need stealth aircraft. And there was something I didnt know and was shock. During the Bosnian war it said in the magazine that 368 harms was shot to take out just 3 SA-6 sites. It said that they was protected but AAA and other smaller SAMS. It also said that the sites stood for months before they could be destroyed. 368 was shock to me because on Falcon BMS or DCS A-10 they take out sites pretty easy. It was a good read you guys might want to check it out.

[maturin]

They were probably turning off their radars as well, something that the AI can't do. Imagine the difference that would make in DCS.

[Blacknemisis]

Yeah your probably right but I thought that the HARMS have something that if you turn off your radar that it still goes to that spot.

[blahdy]

I dont know about the SA-19 but I was reading yesterday in Flight Journal Magazine they were talking about do we really need stealth aircraft. And there was something I didnt know and was shock. During the Bosnian war it said in the magazine that 368 harms was shot to take out just 3 SA-6 sites. It said that they was protected but AAA and other smaller SAMS. It also said that the sites stood for months before they could be destroyed. 368 was shock to me because on Falcon BMS or DCS A-10 they take out sites pretty easy. It was a good read you guys might want to check it out.

 

The SAM operators in this instance were smart and used very strict EMCON (if you read articles about Zoltan Dani SA-3 shots, you can see that it's almost like using sonar in a submarine), knowing when to cease radiating. And plus, after they made their announcement and silenced their radars, it was time for them to pack up and relocate before they get hunted down again.

 

The HARMs used INS to mitigate enemy radar shut-offs, but it wasn't perfect -- the terminal seeker still required radiation source, so unless the enemy turns his radar on again, missile will just miss the target or barely hit it. INS was mostly helpful against enemy frequently flipping the radar on/off..

 

The new recently updated AGM-88E AARGM variant has millimetric-wave radar seeker along with passive radiation homing seeker. Its INS is also aided by GPS to maintain accuracy, so unless the SAM radar physically relocates, missile will lock onto it using millimeter-wave radar and still kill it.

[zzzspace]

ZZZ

 

Hey man how the heck are you? Got your sound pack by the way.....awesome work.

 

 

That is the key to taking down an SA-19, detection time. (I know DUH) :D

 

They may track the HARM but the law of physics is against the SAM on a snapshot engagment. I would suspect that a majority of the intercepts were in fact snapshots and lots of luck. But the ripple HARM tactic fixes that too.

 

Hey, it's awesome to see you around again mate, if you like this sound mod then I'll just have to take that as a real compliment. :D

 

Yeah, ripples of a fast ARM will definitely get through the marginal Tunguska capability.

 

They might have a lot more luck swatting Mavs though.

 

Never been comfortable with the way Mavs take an almost perfectly flat and straight line to their target after burn ... ??? ...

[zzzspace]

Its INS is also aided by GPS to maintain accuracy, so unless the SAM radar physically relocates, missile will lock onto it using millimeter-wave radar and still kill it.

 

Yes, but decoys, jamming, countermeasures, obstacles ... imagine steal-cable netting shot into the path of an ARM just prior to impact ... lots of quite inexpensive ways to interfere with such missiles getting easy-kills. Not to mention that cannons on some systems will be trying to shred them.

 

If you were crewing a mobile SAM you'd collectively spend a lot of time thinking about, working-out and practicing ways to survive ARM attacks, and rendering them far less effective than textbook cases, or video promos by a manufacturer. ... just saying. ;) Like always, the operator can make a bad system look good, and vis-versa.

 

In DCS the Ai just die. :D

Edited August 15, 2012 by zzzspace

[blahdy]

Yes, but decoys, jamming, countermeasures, obstacles ... imagine steal-cable netting shot into the path of an ARM just prior to impact ... lots of quite inexpensive ways to interfere with such missiles getting easy-kills. Not to mention that cannons on some systems will be trying to shred them.

 

Yep.. I think in Kosovo, a practical way used to spoof AGM-88C (with INS) was two radars blinking on and off. Once missile is fired on radar #1, shut it off and let HARM continue to guide with INS. Wait a bit, and then fire up radar #2, to force it to go elsewhere, then turn off radar #2, etc.

[USAFMTL]

They might have a lot more luck swatting Mavs though.

 

Mavs have half the speed of the HARM and only a 16 mile range. However the SA-19 operator better be fast. The AGM-65's 700+ mph speed will cover 16 miles really quick. A missile on missile shot might be a stretch but a CIWS type unit would fair better at taking it out.

[USAFMTL]

Yep.. I think in Kosovo, a practical way used to spoof AGM-88C (with INS) was two radars blinking on and off. Once missile is fired on radar #1, shut it off and let HARM continue to guide with INS. Wait a bit, and then fire up radar #2, to force it to go elsewhere, then turn off radar #2, etc.

 

That is exactly how they did it. Thus the AGM-88E. That is one bad ass HARM. Turn your radar off or go passive....it wont care, it already has pinpointed your location via INS/GPS. Here is some good info on it I found.

 

System

• The AGM-88E AARGM is the follow-on to the

AGM‑88B/C/D High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)

using a modified HARM body and fins. AARGM is employed

on F/A-18C/D/E/F/G platforms.

• The AARGM incorporates Millimeter Wave (MMW), GPS,

and digital Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) guidance, a

Weapon Impact Assessment transmitter, and an Integrated

Broadcast Service Receiver (IBS-R).

- MMW technology allows enhanced target discrimination

during terminal weapon guidance

ARH improvements over HARM include an increased

field-of-view and larger frequency range

- The GPS allows position accuracy in location, time, and

weapon impact assessment transmissions

- The IBS-R enables reception of national broadcast data

[zzzspace]

Had a dig around about this system and where it's at now (nasty-land):

 

--

 

TUNGUSKA

 

Missile variants have 9 kg continuous expanding rod warheads with ~10km range

 

9M311: Original missile, laser proximity fuze.

9M311K (3M87): naval version of the 9M311 used by the Kashtan system.

9M311-1 export version of the missile.

9M311M (3M88): Improved version of the missile

9M311-1M: Used with the Tunguska-M1 radar proximity fuse for improved capability against cruise missiles. Pulsed tracking light instead of constant flare for better ECCM. Range improved to 10 km.

 

 

PANTSIR-S1 (improved and expanded capability Tunguska system)

Far more lethal version of the 9M331, but about 26 kg heavier.

 

Missile variants have a 20 kg continuous expanding wire cable warhead, with a reported ~18 km range and 35k feet.

 

57E6

57E6-E

57E6Y

 

(my guess is the warheads are differnt, so you mix them in the tubes, for different types of engagements)

 

PANTSIR MODES

 

Using a digital data link system up to six Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle can operate in various modes.

 

- Stand alone combat operation: All the combat sequence from detecting a target to its engagement is fulfilled by a single Pantsir-S1 combat vehicle without employing other assets.

 

- Operation within a battery ("master-slave"): One Pantsir-S1 operates both as combat vehicle and as "master" command post. 3 to 5 Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles acting as "slave" receive target designation data from the "master" and subsequently fulfil all the combat operation stages.

 

- Operation within a command post: The command post sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfill the designation order.

 

- Operation within a battery with command post and early warning radar: The command post receives air situation picture from a connected early warning radar and sends target designations to the Pantsir-S1 combat vehicles and subsequently fulfil the designation order.

 

--

 

The Russians are planning to replace all 22 Tunguskas with the Pantsir.

 

As you can see for these images, the system had no trouble with a crossing shot on slow-ish cruise weapon. Interestingly the cruise missile was punched sideways, and spinning out of the air, rather than being structurally disrupted by the multi-ring expanding-wire, which clearly didn't even need to physically hit the cruise missile in order to kill it ... or else ... the warheads have multiple detonation modes ... which seems likely from this.

 

Pantsir is one bad-ass SAM!

Edited August 16, 2012 by zzzspace