Jump to content

Grumble SA-10 (s-300) SEAD


159th_Falcon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Started building a mission and experimenting whit AI flights.

 

Set up 4 F-16's each armed whit 4 AGM-88 anti radiation missiles.

Apart from the fact that i find all weapons where fired rather late in relation to there stated max range i found something else quite odd.

 

The S-300 site i had set up did NOT engage the incoming ARM's at all.

It only fired on the F-16's.

 

Surely this system should be capable of defending itself from incoming ARMS???

 

Anyone can confirm/deny this?

 

PS, i set the S-300 site up in the following way;

 

One: S-300PS CP 54K6 (command post?)

Six: S-300PS SR 5N66M (search radar)

Six: S-300PS TR 30N6 (tracking radar)

Twelve: S-300PS LN 5P85D (launcher)

 

All set to excellent.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this system should be capable of defending itself from incoming ARMS???

 

The huge and expensive long range S-300 missiles engaging incoming HARMs? I don't think so. You should try adding some short range AD system for that purpose (e.g. smth like 2S6 Tunguska or maybe even SA-15). Now, I'm not saying they can do that effectively in real life (also, depends on the variants), but IIRC they might in the sim.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried this for a bit and here's the result:

 

- S-300 does not engage any ARMs. Tried it with Kh-31P, Kh-58 and HARM. I'm fairly certain that this is correct, as ijozic points out.

 

Then, I've added one Tunguska and one Tor to the battery, and lo and behold, SACLOS Tunguska actually engaged and shot down three (out of 6) Kh-31Ps fired at the battery. Considering that Tunguska's missiles are optically command-guided I'm fairly certain that this is a bug. I don't think that any human would be able to optically acquire a supersonic missile and then guide another missile to it.

 

It would help if devs would explain how do they model anti-ARM modes of different SAM/AAA systems. Tunguska even tried shooting down Kh-31P with a cannon. I don't say it's completely weird - Kashtan or Phalanx do exactly that - but the overall effectiveness of these short range systems seems to be a bit too high. Tunguska actually scored a perfect 3/3 vs. Kh-31P, those that passed did so because Tunguska couldn't launch more missiles at the same time.

 

Another thing I noticed is that HARM accuracy is rather poor, maybe 50% land ~20m short of the target. Is that correct too?


Edited by PE_Tigar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, the system does use shorter range SAMS in self defence but only if the missiles (ARM/cruise) manage to get into the minimum launch zone of the S300.

See;

The popular idea of shooting cruise missiles, anti-radiation missiles or standoff missiles at the S-300P/S-300V battery, assuming its location is known, is only viable where such a weapon has a sufficiently low radar signature to penetrate inside the minimum engagement range of the SAM before being detected - anything less will see the inbound missile killed by a self defensive SAM shot. The current Russian view of this is to sell Tor M2E/SA-15D Gauntlet and Pantsir S1/S2 / SA-22 self-propelled point defence SAM systems as a rapid reaction close in defensive Counter-PGM system to protect the S-300P/S-300V battery by shooting down the incoming missile if it gets past the S-300P/S-300V SAMs. Integration of the new Fakel 9M96 series point defence SAM would provide an organic Counter-PGM defensive capability in the battery.
Taken from: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

 

Also taken from the same site;

The design aims of the original S-300P were to produce a strategic area defence SAM system, intended to protect fixed targets such as government precincts, industrial facilities, command posts and headquarters, military bases, strategic and tactical airfields and nuclear sites. This weapon system was to initially defeat SAC's SRAM firing FB-111As, B-52Hs and then anticipated B-1As, and later the Boeing AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile. The deployment model of the first generation systems was based on the existing S-75/SA-2, S-125/SA-3 and S-200/SA-5 systems, with a semi-mobile package of towed trailer mounted radars and missile Transporter Erector Launchers (TEL).
Hence it looks like my expectation of it being able to shoot down incoming ARMS is valid.

Still, im no expert and would like to see opinions from ED on this.

(or just a bug fix as they did whit the S11 BUK)

 

Thanx for commenting though, always good to read other peoples views and opinions.

 

Another thing I noticed is that HARM accuracy is rather poor, maybe 50% land ~20m short of the target. Is that correct too?

If you refer to the AGM-88 ARM then i'm a bit confused, since in my mission they seemed to be spot on every time. didn't see a single one hitting more then 3 meters away from the radar.


Edited by 159th_Falcon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite, the system does use shorter range SAMS in self defence but only if the missiles (ARM/cruise) manage to get into the minimum launch zone of the S300.

 

Oh, if it is mentioned so in a small passage on that webpage, then it must be true :)

 

HARM is a small and fast missile fired from a short range. I really don't see how you can expect that the S300PM system from the mid 80s made for intercepting aircraft and large cruise missiles at rather long ranges to effectively track and engage such small targets. And why would you when you'd normally deploy shorter ranged systems to defend the S300PM battery?

 

They did made the smaller and cheaper missiles which might be used for self-defense purpose more effectively later on (9M96E1/2 on the PMU1), but that's a different story.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, if it is mentioned so in a small passage on that webpage, then it must be true :)

Not necessarily ofcourse, but;

The huge and expensive long range S-300 missiles engaging incoming HARMs? I don't think so.

You could also reverse it ofcourse, what good is having such an expensive and capable system if all it takes is an HARM to take out its radars cause it can't defend itself? Wouldn't make sense.

 

The AGM-88 has a range of 148 km and a speed of MACH 3.0 max

So its neither very fast nor low range, according DCS encyclopedia.

 

On a site note, the system in game is the 300PS, not PM. But i believe that's nitpicking since the PM is the export variant of the PS?

 

Anyways would still love to see an comment from ED on this matter.

(or any of the testers ofcourse)

Cause as maturin mentioned, it used to shoot down incoming missiles in earlier versions so why not now.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AGM-88 has a range of 148 km and a speed of MACH 3.0 max

So its neither very fast nor low range, according DCS encyclopedia.

 

150 km? Maybe the latest E variant, but not the older ones which were up to 50+ km tops.. And that's probably for a high altitude launch; when you launch it from low level, it should drop down considerably, I guess.

 

On a site note, the system in game is the 300PS, not PM. But i believe that's nitpicking since the PM is the export variant of the PS?

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what PS is exactly, but when mentioned, it's put together with the PM so I made the same guess.

 

Anyways would still love to see an comment from ED on this matter.

(or any of the testers ofcourse)

Cause as maturin mentioned, it used to shoot down incoming missiles in earlier versions so why not now.

 

Because it was a bug? :) I think some of the weapon systems are overestimated in the sim. E.g. the T-80s firing ATGMs at airplanes?? Like, WTF. I'd rather they don't allow it at all, rather then make it a standard behaviour just because some pamphlet or some webpage mentioned it as a capability in a very broad sense.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think i largely agree whit you there ijozic.

But i think ausairpower.net is one of the more believable sites when it comes tot this kind of stuff.

If there accurate? No idea.

 

As for the T-80 engaging tanks, depends on the exact situation.

But i guess it would very well be possible and done IRL if the right conditions would occur. Which is unlikely.

 

As for the system shooting down missiles being a bug in FC2 etc. Could be.

Maybe some more research on different site can clear things up, cause i'm not getting the idea ED moderators/testers or staff are going to hop in here any time soon whit a clear answer.

 

Would be happily proven wrong though.:D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the T-80 engaging tanks, depends on the exact situation. But i guess it would very well be possible and done IRL if the right conditions would occur. Which is unlikely.

 

Not tanks, but airplanes with impact trigger beam riding ATGMs. I guess the system could be used to engage the hovering/very slow and low moving helicopters beyond the efficient range of the cannon, but moving aircraft should really not be a target generally (unless maybe in an ideal case where the aircraft is relatively slow and on the attack run at the same tank). And this is all in the ideal case when the air unit is detected in time to be optically tracked and engaged by such units which realistically might not be so common at all.

 

The problem is when you have to simulate a lot of weapon systems so you add some variables to describe the capabilities. So, e.g. you might have a flag for the ground weapon systems like engageAir = true or false. So, if this ATGM is mentioned as a potentially used against the helicopters, with such basic modeling, you might be inclined to put 'true' although the system might actually effectively be used only in special circumstances (e.g. maybe when relative lateral movement is almost none) - so, you'd actually need to implement some function to calculate this for every system and situation. I'm just giving this as a broad example as I'm sure that the DCS code is way beyond this at this point.

 

"M" letter usualy means upgraded\modernized.

 

Yes, PM (available since 1985 from the wiki) is obviously upgraded from S300P which was the initial version (like 1979. or smth), but the question was what exactly is the S300PS? Maybe it might be the Warsaw Pact variant as I'm not sure if the Soviets intended to export such an advanced system at that time (as that obviously changed after the collapse with the PMU version which was heavily marketed for export)? I mean, it's not as strategic as the S300V, but still..


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you refer to the AGM-88 ARM then i'm a bit confused, since in my mission they seemed to be spot on every time. didn't see a single one hitting more then 3 meters away from the radar.

 

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but the missiles landed short with no damage to the radar. These were shots vs. a surveillance radar on a pole (don't remember the code, can't be bothered to look for it). Was just looking at the site as the missiles were flying in, two out of four carried by an F-16C I used for testing landed short (no damage to the radar), one hit the antenna directly, another landed short, but close, making the radar unit burn and explode. Another time - same thing. Maybe this is to simulate HARM effective accuracy, don't know.

 

However - back to the topic. Should S-300 shoot at the incoming missiles? Can it realistically do that, and what's the hit/miss ratio? Can you really protect an S-300 site with a Tunguska (just put 6 Tunguskas around the site and nothing will go through :)). Why is Tor not firing at all - and it should be according to the information we have available? And don't get me started on Buk - that thing seems almost untouchable by ARMs.


Edited by PE_Tigar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, PM (available since 1985 from the wiki) is obviously upgraded from S300P which was the initial version (like 1979. or smth), but the question was what exactly is the S300PS?

 

PS is high-mobility version of P, ru wiki says "C" letter means self-propelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS is high-mobility version of P, ru wiki says "C" letter means self-propelled.

 

Ah, you're right.

 

"In 1982 the V-PVO introduced a fully mobile variant of the system, designated the S-300PS"

 

But, it's not just a mobile variant of the P system as it introduced the 5V55R missile with SAGG guidance.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...