just mouse over the image or open it in a new tab and look at its name
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Captain
It's odd to me that there are no similar calls from the Canadian media. Australia could sit this one out, being a hemisphere away, but Canada is a founding NATO member and should be doing more, IMO.
Australia must step up its effort to help end war in Ukraine
The Albanese government’s response to Ukraine’s pleas for help has been too tepid and too slow. A more generous and urgent response is needed.www.smh.com.au
I know right? Where are the damn Mounties? They could have already had them months ago. Why is the Canadian government holding them up? Hell, the mounties could deliver some precious CF-18s on their way over.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The spokeswoman for Ukraine's Southern Military Command said Russian forces were suffering severe shortages of equipment including ammunition as a result of the damage inflicted last weekend on the Crimea Bridge.
"Almost 75% (of Russian military supplies in southern Ukraine) came across that bridge," Natalia Humeniuk told Ukrainian television, adding that strong winds had also now stopped ferries in the area.
www.reuters.com
If true, this could be very bad news for the Russians in Kherson and westward.
"Almost 75% (of Russian military supplies in southern Ukraine) came across that bridge," Natalia Humeniuk told Ukrainian television, adding that strong winds had also now stopped ferries in the area.
Gunmen kill 11 at Russian army base in new blow to Moscow's Ukraine campaign
The incident is the latest blow to President Vladimir Putin's "special military operation" in Ukraine and comes a week after a blast damaged a bridge linking mainland Russia to Crimea, the peninsula it annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
If true, this could be very bad news for the Russians in Kherson and westward.
Great book. When foreign colleagues asked me in the early 1990s to recommend some reading about USSR, I advised starting with two books: Gulag Archipelago and... Orwell's 1984. The first - what has happened in real life. The second - what could happen if the Soviet model wins.
Token
Senior Airman
Below I am going to draw from my own personal exposure to radar and missile system design and heavily from two documents, https://u.teknik.io/qTeGr.pdf and Almaz S-300P/PT/PS/PMU/PMU1/PMU2 / Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf / SA-10/20/21 Grumble / Gargoyle
Have you ever looked at the S300 trajectory? In publicly released videos they show a VERY up-and-over, even when dealing with low level targets such as helos. Have you ever looked at the missile receive and transmit antennas for the links? I can find nothing that defines the beamwidth, and the beamwidth would drive the off-angle or off-boresight capability. Since the videos (and graphs in the pdf I linked) show an up-and-over I would assume the antennas are able to look off-boresight quite well. If the system is advertised to hit a low level helo at greater than 20 km (and it is), then it can probably achieve similar accuracy against a non-moving target 25 meters lower in altitude.
As I stated in my comment, accuracy of a CG system is degraded by distance, yes. However, it is typically angular track accuracy that becomes the larger issue at distance. The further the target is away from the radar the worse the target positional accuracy of the radar, i.e., as range increases, the track cell gets larger and the uncertainty of the center of the target becomes greater. If, for example, the radar can tell the positional accuracy within say 0.1 degrees, that 0.1 degrees uncertainty is approximately 26 meters at 15 km, and and has grown to approximately 78 meters at 45 km. I am not claiming the S300 has 0.1 degree track accuracy, I am just using that value as an example. Angular positional accuracy degrades as distance from the radar increases.
If you have a surveyed point to the center of the unmoving, unchanging, target, this radar track positional degradation with distance becomes a non-issue. The radar does not track / calculate the position of the center of the target (suffering its track inaccuracies), it just guides to the surveyed center of the target.
With regards to propagation time of the commands and how it impacts guidance accuracy, distance from the launch site to the target is probably not a player with the advertised ranges of the S300 family, especially the early versions. The max range of the early, command guided only, S300 (5V55K) is often quoted as ~45 km. The travel time for the commands from the radar to the missile at 45 km are going to be roughly 150 microseconds. The commands arrive at the missile, at max range, in about 0.00015 seconds. The maximum speed of this missile family is often quoted as Mach 5+, or a tad over 6000 kmh / 1.667 kms (the pdf linked above says the missile peaks out at 1.9 kms, but I am going to use 1.667 kms for this example, reasons below). So the missile moves, at maximum speed, at something like 1.7 km per second, pretty darned fast, but we are talking about a propagation time of 0.00015 seconds. If the missile is still traveling at maximum speed (assuming max speed of Mach 5), and at maximum range (~45 km), from the time the command leaves the radar until it gets to the missile 45 km away, the missile has moved forward approximately 0.25 meters.
Light (in this case, RF) travels fast, I don't think a missile movement of 0.25 meters during propagation time is significant.
However, at distance the missile is not really flying that fast. If you look here ( https://u.teknik.io/qTeGr.pdf ) and look at page 18, you will see the missile is actually under power for a relatively short period, the first 11 or so seconds (max acceleration ~19G), and is coasting from then on. At the end of initial boost it peaks out at about 1.9 kms, and then it slows down the further it goes. So while it maxes out at slightly over Mach 5, the majority of the flight is actually under that speed, but even at ~45 km appears to be ~750 ms, or well over Mach 2 at sea level.
Of greater importance is the radar frame rate, how often the radar revisits the target track and how often it sends commands to the missile. For many systems these values do not change with range, i.e. it corrects the missile guidance the same number of times per second if the target is at 10 km or at 45 km. Some systems do increase the frame rate (shorter intervals between commands) for closer range targets. This revisit rate should be selected (in system design) to be something less than the time constant of the missile autopilot, which is selected partially based on the aerodynamic responses of the missile air frame and the anticipated maximum maneuvering rate of the target set.
If the commands are sent to the missile 20 times per second (every 50 msec) then the Mach 5 missile will move forward about 83 meters between receiving sets of commands. However the commands will have been sent with the projected target point of impact at the time the commands were sent, i.e. based on where the target will be in the future, not where it is now. Indeed, to avoid a tail chase scenario, and to maximize range based on available energy (particularly true with a coasting missile), all commands should be based on the calculated target position at time of impact. You guide to where you (the radar) thinks the target will be when the missile gets there, not to where the target is right now.
Which is why I said "In an up and over it (the radar) might be able to see the missile until the missile is within a few thousand feet of the target, and the last command would arrive with the missile pointed right at the unmoving ground target." Calculating the horizon, without mountains, over flat terrain, at 45 km the missile will lose link about 150 meters above the level of the target. Any additional features, mountains, buildings, etc, will increase that number.
But if you put the 5N63 / 30N6 radar (the radar that tracks the target and provides the missile links) up on the 40V6M mast you push the radar horizon out significantly.
Also remember, the missile will have been being guided to the continuously calculated position the target will be at when the missile gets there, not turned in at the last second. The last command that gets there will have been directing the missile to an unmoving position on the surface. It will probably hit pretty close even if it is ballistic for a few cycles.
Yeah, sure, we are not talking the kind of accuracy that selects which window of the building to go into, but hitting a specific building, or intersection, or power sub station, etc, should not be a big problem.
I do not dispute the issue with the warhead. And, since this specific missile is only under boost for the first part of flight, you probably do not even have a great deal of fuel left on board to enhance the results. But even given a small warhead, a 1000 lb missile impacting at supersonic speeds probably does some damage.
T!
Have you ever looked at the S300 trajectory? In publicly released videos they show a VERY up-and-over, even when dealing with low level targets such as helos. Have you ever looked at the missile receive and transmit antennas for the links? I can find nothing that defines the beamwidth, and the beamwidth would drive the off-angle or off-boresight capability. Since the videos (and graphs in the pdf I linked) show an up-and-over I would assume the antennas are able to look off-boresight quite well. If the system is advertised to hit a low level helo at greater than 20 km (and it is), then it can probably achieve similar accuracy against a non-moving target 25 meters lower in altitude.
As I stated in my comment, accuracy of a CG system is degraded by distance, yes. However, it is typically angular track accuracy that becomes the larger issue at distance. The further the target is away from the radar the worse the target positional accuracy of the radar, i.e., as range increases, the track cell gets larger and the uncertainty of the center of the target becomes greater. If, for example, the radar can tell the positional accuracy within say 0.1 degrees, that 0.1 degrees uncertainty is approximately 26 meters at 15 km, and and has grown to approximately 78 meters at 45 km. I am not claiming the S300 has 0.1 degree track accuracy, I am just using that value as an example. Angular positional accuracy degrades as distance from the radar increases.
If you have a surveyed point to the center of the unmoving, unchanging, target, this radar track positional degradation with distance becomes a non-issue. The radar does not track / calculate the position of the center of the target (suffering its track inaccuracies), it just guides to the surveyed center of the target.
With regards to propagation time of the commands and how it impacts guidance accuracy, distance from the launch site to the target is probably not a player with the advertised ranges of the S300 family, especially the early versions. The max range of the early, command guided only, S300 (5V55K) is often quoted as ~45 km. The travel time for the commands from the radar to the missile at 45 km are going to be roughly 150 microseconds. The commands arrive at the missile, at max range, in about 0.00015 seconds. The maximum speed of this missile family is often quoted as Mach 5+, or a tad over 6000 kmh / 1.667 kms (the pdf linked above says the missile peaks out at 1.9 kms, but I am going to use 1.667 kms for this example, reasons below). So the missile moves, at maximum speed, at something like 1.7 km per second, pretty darned fast, but we are talking about a propagation time of 0.00015 seconds. If the missile is still traveling at maximum speed (assuming max speed of Mach 5), and at maximum range (~45 km), from the time the command leaves the radar until it gets to the missile 45 km away, the missile has moved forward approximately 0.25 meters.
Light (in this case, RF) travels fast, I don't think a missile movement of 0.25 meters during propagation time is significant.
However, at distance the missile is not really flying that fast. If you look here ( https://u.teknik.io/qTeGr.pdf ) and look at page 18, you will see the missile is actually under power for a relatively short period, the first 11 or so seconds (max acceleration ~19G), and is coasting from then on. At the end of initial boost it peaks out at about 1.9 kms, and then it slows down the further it goes. So while it maxes out at slightly over Mach 5, the majority of the flight is actually under that speed, but even at ~45 km appears to be ~750 ms, or well over Mach 2 at sea level.
Of greater importance is the radar frame rate, how often the radar revisits the target track and how often it sends commands to the missile. For many systems these values do not change with range, i.e. it corrects the missile guidance the same number of times per second if the target is at 10 km or at 45 km. Some systems do increase the frame rate (shorter intervals between commands) for closer range targets. This revisit rate should be selected (in system design) to be something less than the time constant of the missile autopilot, which is selected partially based on the aerodynamic responses of the missile air frame and the anticipated maximum maneuvering rate of the target set.
If the commands are sent to the missile 20 times per second (every 50 msec) then the Mach 5 missile will move forward about 83 meters between receiving sets of commands. However the commands will have been sent with the projected target point of impact at the time the commands were sent, i.e. based on where the target will be in the future, not where it is now. Indeed, to avoid a tail chase scenario, and to maximize range based on available energy (particularly true with a coasting missile), all commands should be based on the calculated target position at time of impact. You guide to where you (the radar) thinks the target will be when the missile gets there, not to where the target is right now.
Which is why I said "In an up and over it (the radar) might be able to see the missile until the missile is within a few thousand feet of the target, and the last command would arrive with the missile pointed right at the unmoving ground target." Calculating the horizon, without mountains, over flat terrain, at 45 km the missile will lose link about 150 meters above the level of the target. Any additional features, mountains, buildings, etc, will increase that number.
But if you put the 5N63 / 30N6 radar (the radar that tracks the target and provides the missile links) up on the 40V6M mast you push the radar horizon out significantly.
Also remember, the missile will have been being guided to the continuously calculated position the target will be at when the missile gets there, not turned in at the last second. The last command that gets there will have been directing the missile to an unmoving position on the surface. It will probably hit pretty close even if it is ballistic for a few cycles.
Yeah, sure, we are not talking the kind of accuracy that selects which window of the building to go into, but hitting a specific building, or intersection, or power sub station, etc, should not be a big problem.
I do not dispute the issue with the warhead. And, since this specific missile is only under boost for the first part of flight, you probably do not even have a great deal of fuel left on board to enhance the results. But even given a small warhead, a 1000 lb missile impacting at supersonic speeds probably does some damage.
T!
Last edited:
You are missing my point. I am saying that the article is dated with comments such as:
"if its less capable counterpart the T-90M had been deployed in its place." & "Russia having refrained from deploying the T-90M, however, which is also highly survivable even against Javelins"
My read of the situation is that systems such as the T-14 are essentially 'mirages' - i.e. "look how advanced and tough Russian military is...oh, you want more than 5...err, I have to be somewhere else". Added to that is the fear of seeing one of these new 'super tanks' photographed blown up or captured.
buffnut453
Captain
The problem with all of the above is that one of the targets being hit is Kyiv which is at least 100km from ANY Russian S-300 or other variant system. You can talk about guiding a top-down engagement onto a helo at 20+km but there's zero, I repeat ZERO, evidence that they were capable of command-guiding a first-generation S-300 missile at 100km range...and that's what you need to hit Kyiv if you're using CG as a means of improving accuracy.
If they're using up stocks of the oldest missiles then we're back to the problem of the stated 45km range which is insufficient for many of the attacks we've seen in recent days. The range for a SAM is limited by (a) receiver sensitivity and (b) missile kinematics. Most missiles have a very limited motor burn and are then effectively coasting to the target, with each trajectory adjustment burning off speed and subsequent ability to manoeuvre. To hit Kyiv with older missiles means they're almost certainly just firing them ballistically (which is not the same as "up and over" which may, per my previous post, have a flatter trajectory) and hoping they hit "something" in the city.
I'm not saying Russia is doing this with every launch against every target but it's clear that many of the missiles are being launched purely for terror effect rather than actively targeting specific locations, hence why we're seeing missiles impacting the middle of wide, 4-lane intersections, civilian apartment blocks and other non-military targets.
Again, I go back to my previous point that, in order to understand the precision and accuracy of the S-300/S-400 series in surface-to-surface mode, we need to understand how many missiles were launched, the locations of the intended targets, and the impact point for every missile. Anything else is pure speculation.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
It'd be funny if after all this the Ukrainians show up next year with early-block F-16s and A-10s, and the Russians find out that their SAM parks are now largely empty.
Glider
Captain
According to one report I saw, they are bringing out some 57mm AA guns which is a sure sign of desperation
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
"A weapon unused is a useless weapon."
- General Sline
- General Sline
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I saw a report about that too, 1943-vintage guns.
To be fair, they might be of some use against APCs, but I doubt they can do anything against anything the Ukrainians are flying nowadays. No radar, slow rate of fire, I'm guessing these guns (if the report is true) are for the Russian soldiers getting their asses beat on the ground, not for targeting UAF planes that still aren't flying many sorties, and which they probably cannot track and hit anyway.
Token
Senior Airman
I absolutely agree with this. Until we have such data (and we will realistically never have that) it is all speculation. I was speculating about and commenting based on the basic design and known performance of the system and similar systems. As it was designed, I could see it being very accurate on ground targets within its designed ranges. That was my point, within its designed ranges. If they changed something, or are using it beyond those designed limitations, that speculation goes out the window.
We have comments in various media that the S300 is being used against ground targets. We don't know which versions of the missiles are being used (that goes back to my first post on the subject) and we have no details on how they are being used, only that "they are". We have little in the way of confirmation as to what targets have been hit by what missiles. Targets that are being attributed to S300 might not be.
If they are hitting 100+ km from the launchers, then it would appear to me that one of several things, or combinations of those things, are possible. They are not using the original, early, missiles. They are using the original missiles in a way not originally designed, i.e. a different form of guidance or combinations of guidance. Or they are only guiding the missiles part way, and letting them be ballistic after that, which would probably also require modifications to the missile and the radar, although they may be minor changes.
Lets talk about the "45 km range" of the oldest missiles. I will reference imagery in Google searches and the document I mentioned before, https://u.teknik.io/qTeGr.pdf Visually, the 5V55K and the 5V55R missiles are very similar, in fact they look identical to me. The performance curves inside 45 km look identical. We know there is at least one difference in the missiles, the R includes either a TVM (Track Via Missile) or a SAGG (Seeker Aided Ground Guidance), the improvement is called both depending on which source you quote. The PDF I reference above calls it SAGG. That PDF argues that there are no other differences between the K and R missiles (page 11). It also argues that the kinematics between the missiles are the same, and did not change.
Now look at the engagement zone curves on page 18 combined with the speed/time plots on the same page. It seems to show that the 5V55R missiles have plenty of energy to get to 80+ km at very high altitude. That would argue that something else kept the original 5V55K missile from being used at longer ranges. Again to that PDF, if you look at page 11 you will see what I was saying earlier, although worded differently, "The 5V55K used pure RCG which restricted the engagement zone in distance to 47 km because as the target distance increasing as the measuring error does the same." Basically, due to radar tracking accuracy limitations, the radar cannot accurately command the missile to hit a maneuvering target at ranges beyond ~45 km, so the limitation of ~45 km is not necessarily a missile driven limitation, but may be a radar system driven limitation.
As I said above, the engagement zone curves seem to indicate the missiles can be at ~75,000 feet and 80 km down range, with still intercept level energies.
What if the CG in the radar was changed (or always had a mode that was never demonstrated) to allow the CG missile to be guided to a long range and then tipped over in a ballistic curve to hit a ground target? Looking at those curves it looks like it could get to 150 km pretty easy, maybe further. It might, or might not, be guided until loss of LOS. It could all just be modeled and the guidance simply tries to put the missile through a basket in space at a certain attitude and speed to reach the target form there.
Of course, what I describe above would not have the accuracy of the same missile commanded all the way to a target 20-45 km from the radar.
Comments have been made that they have "added GPS" to the S300, with no details of what this means. What if they drive the missile out with CG to mid course, and then switch over to GPS for terminal guidance? Potentially that could be accurate, but if it is a kludge maybe not.
T!
- Thread starter
- #12,397
And maybe they're just now exploring what the dang thing can do beyond its published limits. Wide open "test range" with no downrange safety concerns.
- Thread starter
- #12,398
Way back in 1968-1973 Hanoi and Haiphong had batteries of radar guided automatic 57mm flak guns that were no slouches against Linebacker raids. IIRC, the radar was called Fansong and the evasive action according to the trainer was a sharp diving turn toward the strobe on the scope to minimize RCS. A sharp enough turn reportedly could break lock, as the system was designed for lumbering bombers.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
My point was that with so few Ukrainian aerial sorties being mounted, there may not be as much a need for medium-caliber AAA, although they could perhaps prove useful against drones flying low and slow. I suspect it's more a matter of "look at this big cannon we've brought you" and then the grunts press it into service as needs fit. Those guns would make good APC/light-AFV killers even over open sights.
Against modern fighters, probably not so much. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are bringing in NASAMS, the IRIS-T, systems designed to shoot down planes and/or missiles. If your backstop for ADA in 2022 is a 57mm with questionable radar for a modern battlefield, I guess you gotta shoot what you have ... poke and pray.
Admiral Beez
Captain
We jest I know, but some cannon-equipped or capable LAVs would have been welcome. Former CAF CDS General Rick Hillier, now chair of the Unite With Ukraine Strategic Advisory Council, says it best:
"We've been very cautious, even selfish, on equipment. We could take a lot more chances — for example take 300 LAV111s, send them to Ukraine and challenge General Dynamics Land Systems to replace them with a better vehicle for the Canadian Army. We've done some good things, but the first $500 million is gone and my question is where is the next $500 million going?"
General Rick Hillier Says Canada Should Offer Training to Ukrainian Troops
In a new article published in Canada's National Post, General Rick Hillier, who is the chair of the Unite With Ukraine Strategic Advisory Council, said that the next step of Canadian support to Ukraine should be Canadian troops offering training to Ukrainian troops.
www.unitewithukraine.com
