Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

effectiveness of s-300/grumble

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • effectiveness of s-300/grumble

    Can anybody tell me how effective this would be against a modern airforce? I presume they would be prime targets for stealth fighters but only the US have then. Their range is long and i believe they have decent eccm...

  • #2
    Who knows. Nobody does. The IDF claimed to be able to decoy and jam the missile a couple years back.


    http://cns.miis.edu/research/cyprus/abstract.htm

    "Turkish F-16 aircraft have reportedly been equipped with ALQ-178 electronic warfare equipment to locate and jam the frequencies employed by S-300 missiles. Turkish pilots have trained at an electronic warfare center in Israel to combat S-300 missiles.[8]"
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #3
      if S-300 is compromised, we can always go for S-400 Triumph

      Surface-to-air missile. Family: Russian SAMs and ABMs. Country: Russia. Department of Defence Designation: SA-20. Manufacturer's Designation: S-400. Launch System: Triumph. Complex: S-400. Missile: 9M96. Manufacturer: Efremov/Lyulev. Location: Moscow, Russian Federation.

      Fourth generation surface-to-air missile system used S-300 9M96-series missiles, but all-new ground elements providing capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles. Competitive development with Almaz for Russian equivalent to THAAD. Standard warhead mass: 24 kg. Maximum range: 40 km. Guidance: I/AR. Minimum range: 1 km. Ceiling: 25,000 m. Floor: 5 m.

      In 1999 trials began at the test range of a new surface-to-air missile, the S-400 Triumf. This fourth generation system used S-300 missiles, but possessed capabilities against low RCS stealth aircraft, small cruise missiles, and future low-RCS re-entry vehicles. The electronics were on a completely new technical basis and used new solutions to the detection, tracking, and guidance problems. The system actually represented a bigger step from third generation systems (S-300PMU, S-300PMU-1, S-300PMU-2) than third generation systems represented to first generation systems.

      The S-400 featured an unbreakable, unjammable data link from the launcher to the missile in flight. The system consisted of the S-300 rocket, a multi-target radar, a launcher, and autonomous observation and tracking vehicles. The S-400 was capable of simultaneously tracking and guiding missiles to a classified but enormous number of targets. One SPU launcher contained four surface-to-air missiles with 400 km range. These missiles were not just capable against airborne targets, but also radar stations, command points, strategic bunkers, and re-entry vehicles of intermediate range missies with velocities of up to 3 km/s.

      The system featured a second launcher with midrange missiles, developed by MKB Fakel, which also would serve as the missile for the naval version of the system. These were capable against aircraft, several types of ballistic missiles, and provided echelon defence of military units.

      The standard launcher had four missiles and could be mounted on heavy chassis of MAZ or KRAZ types. The smaller launcher could be mounted on 3-axle KAMAZ chassis. A typical battery would consist of three launchers, and vehicles with the modular guidance and velocity measurement systems. A single SU consisted of a phased array radar. The radar was carried horizontally for transport, then raised vertically when in use.

      The missile was guided by an on-board inertial navigation unit with radio command during the cruise phase, and active radar homing in the final approach to the target. The small-dimension missiles used the universal 9M96E and 9M96E2 rockets developed by MKB Fakel. The system was planned for use by both the VVS and VMF. The missile was cold-launched vertically from the launcher, only igniting and arcing over toward the target when clear of the vehicle. The Triumf had an increased zone of military usefulness compared to second or third generation missiles, and featured use of new mathematical techniques and computer equipment.

      Radars: 96L6 target acquisition radar, L band, range 300 km. Target acquisition radar, range 700 km. Grave Stone target tracking radar, I/J band, range 300 km.

      Details:
      USA Code Name SA - X - 20
      Russian Designation: S-400 TRIUMPH
      Russian Design Agency Almaz - prime contractor
      Fakel - missile design
      Range: 48N6E from S-300PMU-1 - Approx. 150Km
      48N6E2 from S-300PMU-2 - Approx. 200Km
      9M96E from S-300PMU-3 Approx. 40Km
      9M96E2 - Approx. 120Km

      Next Generation SAM range > 400km possibly based on the 9M83M & 9M82M of the SA-12

      Guidance: Command + Active Radar Terminal Homing or Semi Active Terminal Homing depending on Missile used.
      Inservice: No - development
      Notes: This New system is based on upgraded components of the S-300V and S-300P missile families. It is being developed primarily for export. It has both ATBM and SAM capabilities.
      Some components may be used to upgrade existing S-300 systems.
      Radar's - Surveillance 64N6 'Tombstone' - 3D or
      96L6E 3D system.
      Radar's - Low Altitude 76NG 'Clam Shell'
      Radar's - Fire Control Though this is being described as a new radar is is likely to be based on the S-300 36N85 ' Flap Lid'. Reports indicate a larger array than the Flap Lid with an additional antenna
      Other Components 86M6E - Control System
      54K6E Operations Station

      http://arms.host.sk/missiles/s400.htm
      http://warfare.ru/?catid=264&linkid=1699
      http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/s400.htm
      Last edited by Jay; 09 Feb 05,, 03:39.
      A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

      Comment


      • #4
        Low flying aircraft equipped with many models of older and established radar warning receivers and trackbreaking deception jammers may be vulnerable to attack by the S-300PMU/PMU-1 (SA-10c & -10d "Grumble") SAM system. Such equipment may not be able to detect and jam the 76N6 "Clam Shell" low-altitude search and acquisition radar used by the S-300PMU & PMU-1 series. Currently being marketed by the Moscow-based LEMZ (Lianozovo) company, the 76N6 is a low-altitude FMCW (frequency-modulated continuous wave) search and acquisition radar specifically designed to detect and track approaching and receding low-RCS targets, particularly cruise missiles. FMCW systems are generally credited with high resistance to conventional jamming techniques, and excellent clutter and chaff rejection, features stressed in a LEMZ technical brochure describing the 76N6, writes Carlo Kopp

        ...The FA52MU receiver/transmitter module produces 1.4kW of high-purity CW signal at an unspecified carrier frequency, with an imposed low-frequency FM modulation for ranging against detected targets. "Clam Shell" can detect targets at extremely low altitudes in ground clutter in an intense ECM environment. Signal processing hardware provides rejection of clutter, terrain features, precipitation, high-density chaff clouds and jamming. Detection range is 93km (50nm) for targets at 1,500ft altitude, and 120km (65nm) for 3,000ft altitude, says LEMZ, and the radar can track up to 180 low level targets. Quoted performance figures include the detection of targets with an RCS as low as 0.02 square metres, at speeds of up to 1,400kt, with a bearing resolution of 1 , velocity resolution of 9.3kt and range resolution of 4km (2.15nm). RMS tracking errors are 0.3 in bearing, 4.7kt in velocity and 1.85km (1nm) in range. Chaff rejection performance is better than 100dB.

        ...The latest models of the S-300 provide significant range improvements over earlier variants. The S-300PMU-1 (SA-10d "Grumble") was the first model to employ the new NII Priborostroyenie 64N6 "Tombstone" 3D surveillance and acquisition radar and the Almaz 86M6 brigade command and control system or its 86M6E export variant. Performance characteristics of the planar/phased array 64N6 have not been publicly disclosed, the use of array techniques suggests substantially lower sidelobe performance in comparison with its predecessors. This combined with newer signal and data processing hardware would provide a significant improvement in ECCM performance against earlier acquisition radars used with the S-300.
        http://www.wonderland.org.nz/nw/clamshell_radar.htm

        Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the now-retired former commander of USAF's Air Combat Command, told an AFA symposium in February that these new SAMs, if deployed in numbers large enough to create overlapping zones of engagement, would figuratively present "a brick wall" to nonstealthy fighters,

        The S-300 series comprises the SA-10, SA-12, and SA-20 missiles and attendant radars. Each missile-radar combination is geared to operations within a range of altitudes and targets. It is the definitive "double-digit SAM" threat that has spurred the development of US stealth systems over the last 20 years.

        The SA-10 "Grumble" weapon is the most common of the S-300 missiles that have been sold abroad, first by the Soviet Union and then by its successor state, Russia. It is optimized for use against fighter-type aircraft, having a range of nearly 50 miles and top speed approaching Mach 6.
        http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2001/0601sams.asp

        An issue for the Western electronic warfare community is that the Clam Shell uses FMCW techniques, while many older and established radar warning receivers (RWRs) and trackbreaker jammers (ECM) may not have the capability to detect and jam this system. FMCW systems are generally credited with excellent resistance to conventional jamming techniques, and excellent clutter and chaff rejection, both points stressed in the manufacturer's document. As this system is now being marketed worldwide, with China and India reported as initial export customers, it is likely that it will find other regional users in time. Aircraft not equipped with suitable RWR and ECM will be highly vulnerable to this capable area defence SAM system.
        http://www.ausairpower.net/clamshell.html
        A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

        Comment


        • #5
          Also some more intresting dicsussions regarding F-16's ECM capabilities...
          http://www.airplanes.com/forums/prin...?threadid=1154
          A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

          Comment


          • #6
            nice Jay, really nice, have you heard of the 400+km missile their developing for the S-400, they say that they will be able to use it on aircraft as well, i mean aircraft will be able to utilize the missile
            for MOTHER MOLDOVA

            Comment


            • #7
              Pay attention guys, cause i'm about to share some real world knowledge that a variety of pilots have shared with me:

              SAMs suck.

              The Surface to Air Missile has to be the most over-hyped weapons system in existence IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                Pay attention guys, cause i'm about to share some real world knowledge that a variety of pilots have shared with me:

                SAMs suck.

                The Surface to Air Missile has to be the most over-hyped weapons system in existence IMO.
                Not this one, though.

                The Threats Manual's recommended course of action when encountering this family of SAMs: "Stay out of the engagement envelope." Not kidding.

                Comment


                • #9
                  "The Threats Manual's recommended course of action when encountering this family of SAMs: "Stay out of the engagement envelope." Not kidding."

                  Better safe than sorry.

                  Back in the day the SA-2 was the shiit, then the SA-6 was the shiit, than the SA-11 was the shiit, today, this gadget is the shiit.

                  What we eventuallly found out about all the earlier models, was that yeah...they really are shiit.

                  As long as there is terrain to mask behind, you can fly right by ANY SAM site, and it'll never even know you were there.

                  Patriot is a damned good SAM too, proven in combat to kill all comers, good guy or bad guy alike... Whatdya suppose the Russkie manual says about Patriot?

                  hehehe. ;)

                  SAMs suck.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    so, are you implying that PAC-3 sucks?
                    for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dima
                      so, are you implying that PAC-3 sucks?
                      Well PAC-3 is also a SAM. So he did mean that it sucks too.
                      M21Sniper,
                      I firmly believe we can compromise todays security sheilds like these sams. Well thats all about jamming frequencies or a set of frequencies to do the job. But wouldnt it be unworthy to say that it sucks for clearly its not somethin that can evade away all the threats but again its still of some use against aircrafts./missiles.


                      BTW there was some project carried by the russians in cold war to make sheilds out of the plasma sheilds which could melt down the incoming metal and thus provde defense against the incoming missiles and aircrafts . Though noone can even prove that it existed .and was tested . The prob was apparently the vast amount of energy it needed. Wonder if russians are still working on it or had to stop it due to lack of funds.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        SAMs suck.
                        How comes that I'm not surprised?

                        The 1st fact, that came into my mind, was the hi-alt U2 shut down with a russian G2A missile.
                        the 2nd one are the "arabian" SAMs during arab-israeli wars, which scored more planes, than the AF, and forced israelis to use some unmanned planes to destroy them.

                        How something, that is has been developed for over 50 years all over the world, in USA also ;) , can suck? provided that big Buckz were spent on 'em?
                        now the SAMs also start playing a missile interceptor's role. so, a "sucking" thing wouldnt be able to destroy a missile-sized object

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "the 2nd one are the "arabian" SAMs during arab-israeli wars, which scored more planes, than the AF, and forced israelis to use some unmanned planes to destroy them."

                          Actually that's not really true. Arab planes scored more but the IDF wrote it off as SAMs for obvious reasons.
                          To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yeah, 1973 the eygptian air defenses around the suez destroyed something like 40 israeli jets, it was a mixture of sams and radar guided AA guns. Only when eygptian ground forces advanced out of cover were they destroyed, 9 years later the israelis had next generation technology in the f15s and f16s.

                            The s-300 is mobile and is built to counter these very aircraft, albeit early versions of them

                            M-21 - no doubt sams can only shoot down what their radar sees (desert enviroment being ideal), I think mixing s-300s or even newer s400s with AA guns, short range missiles and fighters, is a strong and mobile air defense. The US and russians seem to agree

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i have to disagree, i like SAM's, i think that they're relatively effective for their price, much more cost efficient than actually buying an aircraft

                              oh ajay, yea just to elaborate, this occurs even on the proposed plasma stealth technology, the generators, the plasma is extremely hot, and any surface that it touches, will melt, that's why America is developing "cold plasma" and so is Russia
                              for MOTHER MOLDOVA

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X