Which soviet air defence systems still pose a threat?

The reason behind the poll is to gage people's views of what they think still poses a threat to western aircraft out of the Soviet made systems which many are still in service  (with upgrades) including Russia itself. We have also seen over the last few months where the Syrian air defence units using SA-5 and SA-3 to defend itself with mixed results from Israeli aggression. Note: I didn't include Tunguska,  Tor, BUK for the reason that these systems in upgraded form are still potent and the latest upgrades are fairly new and the newly upgraded systems are in small numbers within the Russian Armed Forces. But if anyone wants to comment on Tunguska,  buk m1/2, or tor 1. Feel free as the poll only allows 10 options. And yes the systems in the poll are a mix of ranges and uses hence the multiple choice option. Thanks for reading.

With the right upgrade almost any SAM can be effective... it really comes down to the target and whether they are aware the threat has been enhanced or not.

Most of these systems had missiles made in enormous numbers many of which are likely stored somewhere to this day... they produced hundreds of thousands of SA-1 missiles and during the 1970s and 1980s used about 15,000 as test targets for air defence units.


Newer models are more mobile and cheaper/smaller with more potential for options, but even the oldest could be used against dumb targets like cruise missiles...

The-thing-next-door wrote:Could you give the actual designation of the systems I canot be bothered to understand all this nato bullshit.

It's a bit of a habit as I was in the UK armed forces and it's quicker. Am sure if you the air defence systems then you will know the NATO designation

The-thing-next-door wrote:Could you give the actual designation of the systems I canot be bothered to understand all this nato bullshit.

So in return you want me to type it out for you because you can't be bothered lazy comes to mind or maybe incapable or maybe both. I presume both so here you go

S-75
S-125
2K11
S-200
2K12
9K33
9K31
9K35
9K32/9K34/9K38
And am sure you know what ZSU-23-4 is, if not Google it.

Actually it is interesting that unusual tactics with modestly upgraded old technology could take on what was the state of the art future weapon system of the US and win.

I never really thought much of the F-117... you pretty much needed complete air control to actually use it, or you needed complete surprise.

Its payload was two laser guided bombs, and its range was not that much better than 1,000km and it had a low radar cross section... and it is sub sonic.

In other words it is two Calibr missiles with a human in the loop to find and mark the target during the engagement.

All that money on stealth and secrecy and they end up with something a Blackjack can carry 6 of...

I think they realised that too considering it didn't last much longer in service after it was proved it was not invisible... but then there was only hype it ever was.

This makes for an interesting point... the US and Israel are careful with their aircraft... because protecting the reputation of being invincible is just as important or more so than saving their pilots lives. Certainly more important than their ground troops lives... hence they wouldn't fly within MANPADS range in Kosovo, so it is safe to assume they wont risk themselves for the Kurds in Syria or the Ukrainians in the Ukraine.

This suggests to me that the shorter range upgraded missiles are nice but to give them a real surprise and the best chance of a shock/kill/kick in the balls, is with the larger heavier missiles.

A more accurate terminal portion with improved aerodynamics and better resistance to countermeasures can certainly make an otherwise useless shot rather more effective.

You would certainly need more than just an upgraded missile... you would need to plan an event on the ground that creates an urgent need for an air intervention and then carefully plan a trap.

In kosovo the US was lazy, but even then if we can take their stealth nonsense at face value even knowing the exact flight path planned makes shooting down an aircraft unlikely, so they must have been able to detect and track the stealth target... if they can do that why would they not be able to engage non stealth US and Israeli aircraft.

Preferably an AWACS or JSTARS type... which means improved SA-5 (S-200)... improvements in fuels and a serious reduction in electronics weight and increase in performance and of course improvements in terminal accuracy basically mean the huge warhead could be reduced... all of which will dramatically improve range and probably flight speed... making a surprise trap very possible.

A lofted high altitude ballistic trajectory would maximise range... they wont fly AWACS or JSTARS within the known range of S-200, but what if the effective range is 3 or 4 times bigger than its old max range....