Warsaw pact integrated air defense system?

[Nodeo-Franvier]

Any one got information on the integrated air defense system of the Warsaw pact? Did they have command and control computer?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The SA-10, introduced at the end of the 1970s, was fully automated, with digital control:

The SA-10A launch complex consists of a missile battery which includes a battery command post and engagement control center, the large CLAM SHELL 3D continuous wave pulse Doppler target acquisition radar, the FLAP LID A I-band multi-function phased-array trailer-mounted engagement radar with digital beam steering in hardened sites, and up to 12 semi-trailer erector-launchers which mount four tubular missile container-launchers.

S-300PMU SA-10 GRUMBLE - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces

 

[fastmongrel]

Most Soviet interceptors from the late 50s or early 60s had data links from the ground control that automatically flew the aircraft to visual range of a bomber. The pilot was mostly there to switch the computer off and on again if there was a fault.

Without data linked computers on the ground and in the interceptors it would have been impossible to defend against attacks coming from multiple directions over such a vast area. The RAF V bombers especially used a lot of jamming to try and disrupt the data links the USAF tended to try and scramble everything including radar stations, control centres and data links.

 

[J_P_C]

Lazur system has been in service since early 60's - but this system was pure analog device , this system was only for fighters guidance - something like NATO's link4. In general Integration of defense system on east was nothing like NATO thought - seriously overestimating Soviet technology, rather it should be seen as a set of systems with very weak cooperation between different elements (SAMS, AA artillery not even mentioning fighters) it was dangerous because of its vast number not because of technological excellence. Computerized command systems has been introduced on national level in the mid 70's at least in a case of Poland.

 

[J_P_C]

Most Soviet interceptors from the late 50s or early 60s had data links from the ground control that automatically flew the aircraft to visual range of a bomber. The pilot was mostly there to switch the computer off and on again if there was a fault.

Without data linked computers on the ground and in the interceptors it would have been impossible to defend against attacks coming from multiple directions over such a vast area. The RAF V bombers especially used a lot of jamming to try and disrupt the data links the USAF tended to try and scramble everything including radar stations, control centres and data links.

well - you are wrong in many points, Lazur system wasn't datalink, it was telemetry system - 100% analog. There wasn't any computer on board on fighters - control loop was closed by human - simply additional markers on NPP and height indicators - philosophy similar to ILS system. I can assure you that pilots has been trained not only in GCI type tasks. Dogfight and CAP missions was also part of training not mentioning ground support. But all this of course within limitation imposed by technological level of the aircrafts. GCI was simply found as most effective means of combat because Soviets made on boards radars and medium range missiles were far inferior in compare to western ones.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

How about in 1989? By then even the Iraqis have pretty decent system?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

How about in 1989? By then even the Iraqis have pretty decent system?

Was the Iraqi system decent? Last I recall, the Iraqi air defense system was rendered useless the first night of the air war during Operation Desert Storm. It was a huge air defense system but it failed.

 

[J_P_C]

Was the Iraqi system decent? Last I recall, the Iraqi air defense system was rendered useless the first night of the air war during Operation Desert Storm. It was a huge air defense system but it failed.

Depends what you are finding as a decent "system". Using only ground radars you are really unable to create really tight air defense system. Radar coverage on medium, high altitudes may be satisfactory but for low flying aircrafts radar detection ranges will be too small to assure surviving major nodes (detection posts) - US has exploited this sending AH-64 and F117 in first wave - remaining part was easy. Without information source even best class command support system is useless.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Depends what you are finding as a decent "system". Using only ground radars you are really unable to create really tight air defense system. Radar coverage on medium, high altitudes may be satisfactory but for low flying aircrafts radar detection ranges will be too small to assure surviving major nodes (detection posts) - US has exploited this sending AH-64 and F117 in first wave - remaining part was easy. Without information source even best class command support system is useless.

My question was not a serious one. I was pointing out how the Iraqi defence was annihilated rather quickly after another poster said it was decent.

 

[J_P_C]

Iraqis fought in a way which has been created by Soviets based on experiences coming out from Vietnam and Six Days wars - simply they have been two wars behind US/NATO. War is a game where loosing side is usually this one which is overestimating its own capabilities and underestimating enemies. That was exactly this case.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agreed

 

[Dimlee]

That operation was a real eye-opening experience for the Soviet military.
Operation Mole Cricket 19 - Wikipedia