Soviet SAM systems. What are your thoughts?

With still a huge number of Soviet made SAM systems still in operation around the world i was looking to see what peoples views are on these systems and how capable they are on the modern battlefield up against NATO aircraft.

the following systems are the ones in question. And we can assume that they have had the latest upgrades if it makes it easier to answer.


SA-2 (S-75M)
SA-3 (S-125 Neva/Pechora)
SA-4 (2K11 Krug)
SA-5 (S-200)
SA-6 (2K12 Kub)
SA-8 (9K33 Osa)
SA-9 (9K31 Strela-1)
SA-13 (9K35 Strela-10)
SA-19 (2K22 Tunguska)


I haven't included the MANPAD's SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, but if you want to mention please feel free i also havent mentioned the SA-1 (S-25 Berkut) as North Korea is the only current operator and i guessing that the condition of these will be poor and possibly out of service due to condition, but yet again feel free to mention if you want.

d_taddei2 wrote:With still a huge number of Soviet made SAM systems still in operation around the world i was looking to see what peoples views are on these systems and how capable they are on the modern battlefield up against NATO aircraft.

the following systems are the ones in question. And we can assume that they have had the latest upgrades if it makes it easier to answer.


SA-2 (S-75M)
SA-3 (S-125 Neva/Pechora)
SA-4 (2K11 Krug)
SA-5 (S-200)
SA-6 (2K12 Kub)
SA-8 (9K33 Osa)
SA-9 (9K31 Strela-1)
SA-13 (9K35 Strela-10)
SA-19 (2K22 Tunguska)


I haven't included the MANPAD's SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, but if you want to mention please feel free i also havent mentioned the SA-1 (S-25 Berkut) as North Korea is the only current operator and i guessing that the condition of these will be poor and possibly out of service due to condition, but yet again feel free to mention if you want.

The story of the F-117 shootdown during the 1999 NATO war on Serbia is good indication that these system are only
obsolete if not used creatively.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html

The issue is value for money.

If you had no SAMs at all and were looking to buy then it would not make sense to buy old systems and then upgrade them.

If however you already had lots of systems in service and they were getting long in the tooth the choice is upgrade or replace and that is where the decision becomes much less clear cut...

The newer SAMs are rather more capable but also rather more expensive due to more sophisticated sensors and support systems.

Of course the upgrades for older models include many of those improved sensors and systems so the costs are not that different, while performance will be different.

An example would be the choice of TOR or OSA with an upgrade... ironically you could buy OSA and pay to have a ARH sensor for each missile dramatically increasing the cost of the SA-8 missiles but also making them vastly more capable and fully fire and forget. Or you could spend a small fortune on TOR with powerful 3D radar and tracking radar and simple and very cheap command guided missiles...

It really depends on what you want or need and what you already have.

Note they produced about 100,000 SA-1s and since the 1970s have used about 20,000 as training targets... and will likely continue to use them in such a role. they also have other model SAMs used as targets for newer systems too.

d_taddei2 wrote:With still a huge number of Soviet made SAM systems still in operation around the world i was looking to see what peoples views are on these systems and how capable they are on the modern battlefield up against NATO aircraft.

the following systems are the ones in question. And we can assume that they have had the latest upgrades if it makes it easier to answer.


SA-2 (S-75M)
SA-3 (S-125 Neva/Pechora)
SA-4 (2K11 Krug)
SA-5 (S-200)
SA-6 (2K12 Kub)
SA-8 (9K33 Osa)
SA-9 (9K31 Strela-1)
SA-13 (9K35 Strela-10)
SA-19 (2K22 Tunguska)


I haven't included the MANPAD's SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, but if you want to mention please feel free i also havent mentioned the SA-1 (S-25 Berkut) as North Korea is the only current operator and i guessing that the condition of these will be poor and possibly out of service due to condition, but yet again feel free to mention if you want.

why you open threads of same subject?? there is already one exactly the same

George1 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:With still a huge number of Soviet made SAM systems still in operation around the world i was looking to see what peoples views are on these systems and how capable they are on the modern battlefield up against NATO aircraft.

the following systems are the ones in question. And we can assume that they have had the latest upgrades if it makes it easier to answer.


SA-2 (S-75M)
SA-3 (S-125 Neva/Pechora)
SA-4 (2K11 Krug)
SA-5 (S-200)
SA-6 (2K12 Kub)
SA-8 (9K33 Osa)
SA-9 (9K31 Strela-1)
SA-13 (9K35 Strela-10)
SA-19 (2K22 Tunguska)


I haven't included the MANPAD's SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, but if you want to mention please feel free i also havent mentioned the SA-1 (S-25 Berkut) as North Korea is the only current operator and i guessing that the condition of these will be poor and possibly out of service due to condition, but yet again feel free to mention if you want.

why you open threads of same subject?? there is already one exactly the same

sorry never realised there was one please share the link of the thread you are refering to for Soviet SAM's

Sat Pics from 2015 & 2016 show Pechora 2M equipment at Site 60, Kapustin Yar.
Any ideas why they test this system? It is not new (in principle) and not intended for the Russian Army and I think they will not made final tests for export issues at Site 60

https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Just found that simulator. I didn't upload it but their are videos on the website made by ex profesioal radar oprators that show how they shoot F-117. If anyone has informations about it, please share them.

rambo54 wrote:Sat Pics from 2015 & 2016 show Pechora 2M equipment at Site 60, Kapustin Yar.
Any ideas why they test this system? It is not new (in principle) and not intended for the Russian Army and I think they will not made final tests for export issues at Site 60

Russia has developed a missile with the warhead replaced with telemetry instrumentation, for use as target drones. So i am guessing that this is being used for this purpose considering Kapustin Yars is a test facility.

Isos wrote:https://sites.google.com/site/samsimulator1972/home

Just found that simulator. I didn't upload it but their are videos on the website made by ex profesioal radar oprators that show how they shoot F-117. If anyone has informations about it, please share them.

you will need to try it out and let us know how it goes could be fun

rambo54 wrote:Sat Pics from 2015 & 2016 show Pechora 2M equipment at Site 60, Kapustin Yar.
Any ideas why they test this system? It is not new (in principle) and not intended for the Russian Army and I think they will not made final tests for export issues at Site 60

I think these would not be exactly SA-3 systems, but the target missiles developed from them.

From what I see in the public reports, target missiles for development of new systems and training have been developed from:

SA-1
SA-2
SA-3

BM-21
SA-6
SA-8

After a transformation changing the nature of the missiles and Rockets (being not more SAM or Surface-Surface weapons) these (and other) systems are used as target missiles. If fact it would not be right to say that SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, BM-21, SA-6 or SA-8 systems are used as target missiles. In the case of the BM-21, SA-6 and SA-8, the weapons remain in use for their original purpose.

In the following link there is access to the different types of target missiles used, checking the "Rocket target and target systems" part. According to the information, some of them have been developed from SAM systems and others not.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rusarmy.com%2Fpvo.html
http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo.html

The Lissa-M mobile ground based system with Strizh training missiles is an example... it uses the vertically launched SA-1.

The Peniye training target system uses the SA-6 missile, while the RM-75 uses the SA-2 missile system.

There are even combinations where the SA-3 ground based fixed launcher with four launch rails can be used to launch four SA-3 missiles at training targets, but can also be fitted with the missile containers of the SAMAN missile system, so the launcher can be used to launch four SA-3s or four SA-8s to simulate multiple targets.

Note the original OSA vehicle can carry 6 missiles but for a testing range the mobility is not so useful and cheaper static launchers of multiple missiles makes more sense.

The single rail launcher for SA-3 missiles is called Pishchal... and of course the SA-8 Gecko system has Saman target missiles in a fully autonomous system able to simulate small targets like drones, cruise missiles, and HARM missiles.

d_taddei2 wrote:With still a huge number of Soviet made SAM systems still in operation around the world i was looking to see what peoples views are on these systems and how capable they are on the modern battlefield up against NATO aircraft.

the following systems are the ones in question. And we can assume that they have had the latest upgrades if it makes it easier to answer.


SA-2 (S-75M)
SA-3 (S-125 Neva/Pechora)
SA-4 (2K11 Krug)
SA-5 (S-200)
SA-6 (2K12 Kub)
SA-8 (9K33 Osa)
SA-9 (9K31 Strela-1)
SA-13 (9K35 Strela-10)
SA-19 (2K22 Tunguska)


I haven't included the MANPAD's SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, but if you want to mention please feel free i also havent mentioned the SA-1 (S-25 Berkut) as North Korea is the only current operator and i guessing that the condition of these will be poor and possibly out of service due to condition, but yet again feel free to mention if you want.

According to the public reports, Syria is building a new air defense system, and is doing it with a mix of advanced and less modern systems.

Everyone knows at this point about the presence of the SA-10/12/20/23 (S-300) and SA-22 systems. Also they increased the number of SA-11/17, SA-19 and SA-6. Only the SA-8 and the SA-13 seems to have a decline of its numbers since the begin of the war.

But in adition to this, Syria also increased significantly its numbers of SA-3, SA-5, SA-2and S-60 towed systems, until a point that makes the SA-2 almost exhausted worldwide, keeping the numbers of SA-9 and ZSU-23-2 (also used for infantry) .

The lower effectiveness of the oldest systems is a fact. But Syria is applying the easiest formula in case of lower effectivenes: Higher density of systems.

The weakness of the SA-3, SA-5 and SA-2 is clear. Towed launchers that make more difficult its survivability in case of attacks. But like they have a range that is not easy to avoid, with high density of systems, they can be able of doing significant damage before to be destroyed, and more if are combined with more modern systems.

Between the self propelled systems, the SA-9 has the smallest range. It would be the weakest in my opinion and the first to disappear totally (today totally retired in Russia). The next for me would be the SA-13, also by its shorter range.

we have talked about the systems but not about the threat posed towards NATO aircraft such as Typhoon, Mirage, Rafale, Gripen, tornado, F-35, F-22, F-18, F-16, F-15, B2 spirit, maybe it might be easier to use a basic rating system of 1-10, 10 being the biggest threat and 1 the lowest on the following systems. Any views would be great.

SA-7
SA-14
SA-16
SA-18
SA-24
Verba

ZSU-23-4
Tunguska
Panstir
SOSNA-R

TOR
BUK
SA-4
SA-6
SA-8
SA-9
SA-13

SA-1
SA-2
SA-3
SA-5
S-300
S-400

Not this one, there was more missile ready to lunch. I found the picture :

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/strelets_igla_igla-s_sa-24_sa-18_automatic_remote_firing_control_launcher_unit_data_sheet_uk.html

Look at the the bottom the picture 3

Isos wrote:Not this one, there was more missile ready to lunch. I found the picture :

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_missile_system_vehicle_uk/strelets_igla_igla-s_sa-24_sa-18_automatic_remote_firing_control_launcher_unit_data_sheet_uk.html

Look at the the bottom the picture 3

Its just Strelets variant placed on Strela-10 structure, i dont think any of those were really built for service.

According to The Military Balance 2017, the S-125 Pechora-2M mobile system, seems to have the designation of SA-26.

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi very true, i think against most modern aircraft these systems now struggle, i know SA-2, SA-3, SA-4 have had some upgrades in some way shape or form, but does these upgrades make them any good, or should countries look to replace these older soviet systems, ASAP???

I read many many books about this topic in the past. In spite of many upgrade, nowadays the SA-2/3/4...most of them are completly ineffective against the actual generation of US fighters like the last model of F-4 Phantom II, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, F-35, and obviously F-22.
Most the old Sam systems operate in X band, the concept of stealth fighters was aimed to neutralize these old SAM system. Moreover, most of the anti radar missiles were designed to destroy the X-Band.
I don't know about the SA-11, and the last models of gainful if I recall called SA-17, could be effective against F-4, F-15, F-16, and probably F-18, but against the others I don't know. Maybe not.
The new generation of SAM like the SA-22 Greyhound aka Pantsir could be more effective, and very lethal against all kind of US fighters, because it uses the passive detection. I heard that the aircraft could detect, and track without the stealth fighter understand that it was tracked.
As it was said, more you spend money in the R&D, more your SAM system will be effective. The SA-2, SA-4, and SA-5 were aimed against B-52, and other US's assets like ELINT, AWACS of the 60's. 50 years after, these systems are completely outdated.

Even SA-3 would be effective against cruise missile attacks and could be used in large numbers for that role.
Mobile systems like SA-8 and SA-9/13 would also be very useful for that role too.

On other forums they are constantly slating soviet air defence. The systems they state that are no longer good / capable systems on modern battle field even with upgrades are:
Sa-2
Sa-3
Sa-4
Sa-5
Sa-6
Sa-8
Sa-9
Sa-13
Zsu 57-2
Zsu 23-4
Tunkuska
Sa-7
Sa-14
Sa-16
Sa-18

And some even question Tor and Buk and some claim s-300 isn't as good as people say. Although s-400 gets some praise but someone even said it was just as good as patriot which I find a complete joke. Very few comments were made about sa-24, verba, pantsir. So my question to the forum are these pieces of equipment in the first list defunct and of no use against modern aircraft? ???

NATO refused to fly below 15-20K feet in Kosovo because of the risk of manpads like SA-14 and SA-16.

I have never seen a real western military professional diss Tunguska or for that matter the system it replaced... Shilka.

The ZSU-57-2 is devastating against ground targets as seen with use of the S-60 in Syria and Libya, but in its original form would not be effective against fast jets... a helo would be in real trouble if they tried their stupid tactic of hovering behind trees to launch missiles...

Sa-2 through to SA-5 are strategic weapons... only poor third world countries still operate those without upgrades... the last kill for the SA-5 was by the Ukraine... it was a civilian airliner with a lot of Israelis on it from memory.

S-300 is a very good system, I don't think NATO could ignore such a system and I don't think they could honestly defeat it any other way than overwhelm it with numbers... of course no long range SAM like that would operate on its own.

On the Auspower website there is an article by Carlos Kopp about the under performance of Soviet SAM systems in past conflicts... it is well worth a read.

S-300 is a very good system, I don't think NATO could ignore such a system and I don't think they could honestly defeat it any other way than overwhelm it with numbers... of course no long range SAM like that would operate on its own.

Unprotected by shorter range missiles they are not dangerous. A common tactic is to find it fly under radar coverage and lunch ARM missiles. Small countries shouldn't bought them as they can have just few of them. It's better for their price (250 million $ for last PMU variants) to buy hundreds of pantsir, Iglas S, buk and IR missiles that can be much more deadly.

A country that has the size of Bielorussia or Serbia could be much more better protected by them than by 2 or 3 S-300.

Isos wrote:

S-300 is a very good system, I don't think NATO could ignore such a system and I don't think they could honestly defeat it any other way than overwhelm it with numbers... of course no long range SAM like that would operate on its own.

Unprotected by shorter range missiles they are not dangerous. A common tactic is to find it fly under radar coverage and lunch ARM missiles. Small countries shouldn't bought them as they can have just few of them. It's better for their price (250 million $ for last PMU variants) to buy hundreds of pantsir, Iglas S, buk and IR missiles that can be much more deadly.

A country that has the size of Bielorussia or Serbia could be much more better protected by them than by 2 or 3 S-300.

it is a bit difficult to kill the S-300 system with anti radiation missiles.

The acquisition radar has 16cm wave length and pencil beam means the rocket has small chance to target it.
The targeting radars doesn't works only during shot.



It is not easy to shot down the S radar due to the same reason why it is hard to use S band for targeting.

Garry what's your opinion on the sa-6, sa-8,sa-9,sa-13? (Upgraded )
Am I correct in saying that sa-4 and Tor haven't got any confirmed kills?

And sa-2 through to sa-5 in upgraded versions are no longer a threat to western aircraft?

I personally think the shilka is still deadly nothing you can do against a hail of 23mm rounds. Shilka and Zsu 57-2 are of course like you say ideal for ground support.

As for S-300 I personally feel other forums talk it down because in reality they know it's good but don't want to admit it as it's Russian and not western.

d_taddei2 wrote:Garry what's your opinion on the sa-6, sa-8,sa-9,sa-13? (Upgraded )
Am I correct in saying that sa-4 and Tor haven't got any confirmed kills?

And sa-2 through to sa-5  in upgraded versions are no longer a threat to western aircraft?

I personally think the shilka is still deadly nothing you can do against a hail of 23mm rounds. Shilka and Zsu 57-2 are of course like you say ideal for ground support.

As for S-300 I personally feel other forums talk it down because in reality they know it's good but don't want to admit it as it's Russian and not western.

S-300 is a very good. Nato had exercice in France and slovakia bring a S-300 and they admited it's a deadly system even in a jamed environment. It was an old export version operated by slovak crew whoch means totaly not representative of a S-300PMU2 operated by russians.


Shilka is good but Pantsir and Tunguska are better as they also have missiles, better radar and are better connected to the IADS at least in Russia as they are newer. But you can jam bullets and they can fire jst with optics even if the radar doesn't work.

Sa-9/13 are IR guided missile, which means very usefull and dangerous because they area passive system and if you look about NATO wars they loosed much more fighters to IR missiles than radar guided, all of them were against downgraded export versions.

Sa-6 is dead. Israeli lost lot of aircrafts to it but when they had correct countermeasures it wasn't good anymore. Buk are much better.

Sa-8 would be good against helicopters. French forces have captured a lybian Sa-8 and analysed it and practiced in exercice against. Every NATO fighter has its radar frequency saved in their ECM programs.

Sa-2/3/4/5 are static systems. They are old and are easily jammeable by modern ECM. Sa-3 has a very good upgrade package Pechora 2M. Syrian used it to destroy a Popey cruise missile lunched by F-15/16 whoch had before the attack succesfully dog Buk missiles fired at them. You can found the artcle easily.


If all of these short range systems work together, some passively (IR missiles and Shilka) other with radars and in a integrated air defence you can destroy lot of targets. Plus if you add a S-300 it deadly as f***.

The S-300 will oblige fighters to fly low and the other smaller systems will ambush and destroy them. Once they know there are smaller systems they will have to fly higher and the S-300 will destroy them. You just need good coordination and communication systems for that. New Buk M3 is said to be better than S-300P.

In my opinion, a lonely air defence system is not dangerous at all if you know were it is.

I have always found it crazy that most western armed forces tend to rely on their airforce for air defence and then just use manpad or possibly a medium range system. I was in British army and all they had at the time was rapier static and tracked, and javelin shoulder launched and twin mounted on tri pod, starstreak was just entering service starstreak on paper looked good. I also found it strange that uk got rid of striker anti tank it was a good powerful system and useful but gone now. Also no real marine patrol aircraft after nimrod scandal