It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thanks, I just used widely quoted performance figures. The way I see it they are nearly always optimistic anyhow. But re the SA-5 - I can't imagine getting a very good kill probability launching it against targets at 300m unless they are a hovering helicopter. Maybe 300m relates to the warhead arming distance?
Originally posted by StellarX
According to Russian arms brochures the Sa-5's minimum engagement range is 0.3 km. and the other claim is once again Western sources confusing the Sa-5 with the missile it was based on ( V-1000). I am not sure if that range was after the last upgrade or since when but it was certaintly never the distance quoted above.
Only thing that i am going to disagree with atm. Great pictures and thanks for the huge amount of effort you put into this.
Originally posted by planeman
Thanks, I just used widely quoted performance figures.
The way I see it they are nearly always optimistic anyhow.
But re the SA-5 - I can't imagine getting a very good kill probability launching it against targets at 300m unless they are a hovering helicopter.
Maybe 300m relates to the warhead arming distance?
Originally posted by jajabinks
I think that F-117 was actually hit by AAA, a lucky shot..and considering how many sorties were flown over Yugoslavia, the Serbian defenses were a complete failure as the coaltion planes were mostly able to bomb with impunity..it's a far cry from for example the Vietnam or Yom Kupper war where these missiles were blowing away American planes like crazy..In the Yom Kupper War the Syrians/Egyptians destroyed 1/2 the Israeli Air Force in the opening days with those things, Israel lost so many planes that The US had to emergency order the US AirForce pilots to fly to TelAviv, land their plane, and give the keys to the nearist Israeli pilot. Those missiles just don't work like that anymore..
BUT I beleive the Russians have newer generation missiles like the TOR-M1 missile that are actually supposed to be very effective vs the latest western planes..I know the US was desperatly trying to get Russia not to sell them to Syria & Iran..I think the Iran deal has been postponed until the nuclear issue is resolved but I think the Syrian deal went thru and the missiles shouls have been delivered by now..any infos??
Thanks, that's really interesting. One particular comment:
Originally posted by ArcPeter
Here is the interesting article where Colonel Dani Zoltan whose battery(SA-3) believed to shot down F-117 explain how he was able to do it.
Shows what able commander can do even with outdated technology.
One problem with moving your SA-3 battery is that you are focusing on survival, not killing the enemy.
Even for experienced battery operators, you are talking in the order of an hour to set up and an hour to pack up the site.
Tie this in with operating from less than ideal sites, and you pretty much lose the reason for having a SAM battery in the first place - protection of your vital assets.
Taking out two aircraft in a 78 day war is a pretty poor conversion rate,
and is pretty much an acknowledgement that the system as a whole had zero chance of beating the allied air attack, and ensuring that assets survived was more important in the off chance that the political leaders remained in power.
Systems such as SA-2 and SA-3 pose little challenge to an effective air force that utilises stand-off jamming, long range cruise missiles and stand-off weapons to target fire control radars, stealth platforms, and superior ISR coverage.
Yes, the system can hide, but if you are hiding, you aren't shooting.
There is a trade-off, and most older SAM operators realise that they are on a hiding to nothing if they light up a Coalition aircraft. Hence the increase in unguided shots, and using SAMBUSH tactics in an attempt to blind-side a pilot flying dumb.
Now SA-10/20 is a slightly different story, with improved EPM, multi-target engagement capability, and substantially longer range. You can bet that any such system will be tracked via a range of intelligence systems, and the FCR will be close to number one on the joint targeting list come zero hour.
Oh, and SA-14 is far from a current generation MANPAD. While it has a different seeker to SA-7, it is still an older scan reticle, with no IRCCM. SA-18 is much better, both in terms of EPM and also range.