S 300V
S 300V
www.VeteransUnited.com Get Your VA Home Loan W ith $0 Down & Up To $417K- PreQualify in 2 Mins
NIEMI/Antey S-300V 9K81/9K81-1/9K81M/MK Self Propelled Air Defence System / SA-12/SA-23 Giant/Gladiator / C C-300 981/981-1/981/ / 2500
T echnical Report APA-T R-2006-1202 by Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng
First published 2003 Updated December 2006 Updated August 2007 Updated June December 2008 Updated July 2009 Updated November 2010 Updated May, June 2011 Updated April 2012
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The S-300V/S-300VM/VMK/Antey-2500 is the world's only truly mobile Anti Ballistic Missile system, and later variants are claimed to be capable of intercepting 4.5 km/sec reentry speed targets. The large size of the Grill Pan phased array and TELAR command link and illuminator antennas is evident. The system provides the capability to engage very low RCS aircraft at ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. Below: 9M82 Giant round (images Miroslav Gyrsi).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9S32 Grill Pan S-300V engagement radar deployed on an Article 830 series tracked vehicle (NIEMI image).
Background Genesis of the Antey S-300V/SA-12A/B Gladiator/Giant S-300V/VM/SA-12/23 System Design and Integration 9S32 Grill Pan and 9S32M Engagement Radars 9A82 and 9A83 T ELARs and 9A84 and 9A85 T EL/T ransloaders 9S15/9S15MT Obzor / Bill Board Acquisition Radars 9S19/9S19M Imbir / High Screen ABM Acquisition Radar Novator 9M82 / SA-12B Giant and 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missiles 9M82 / SA-12B Giant and 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Drawings Planned Design Evolution and Variants 3K81M/S-300VM/Antey-2500/SA-23 3K81MK/S-300VMK/SA-23 Production and Exports 9K81 T echnical Data 9K81 Launch Footage 9K81 Battery Components 9A82/9A82M T ransporter Erector Launcher And Radar 9A83/9A83M T ransporter Erector Launcher And Radar 9A84 T ransporter Erector Launcher/T ransloader 9A85 T ransporter Erector Launcher/T ransloader 9S32 Grill Pan Engagement Radar 9S32M Engagement Radar 9S15MT Obzor III / Bill Board Acquisition Radar 9S19 Imbir / High Screen ABM Acquisition Radar
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9S457/457M Self Propelled Command Post 9T 31M1 Self Propelled Crane Annex A - Comparative Analysis Sprint ABM vs S-300V References/Sources
Background
The highly mobile Antey S-300V and S-300VM remain one of the most lethal area defence SAM systems ever developed, firing hypersonic missiles designed to engage aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Designed from the outset for high mobility and effectiveness against targets at all altitudes, the S-300V would have been a key player in any late Cold War conflict. This weapon was developed to provide not only long range area defence, but also to engage and destroy ISR assets like the E-3 AW ACS, E-8 JSTARS and U-2, and tactical jammers like the EF-111A Raven and EA-6B Prowler. There have been repeated reports since the beginning of the decade in the Indian media that a buy of this system was imminent, but to date none has materialised. Numerous reports have also surfaced that the PLA is operating either an S-300V or S-300VM variant under the designation of HQ-18, although no hard evidence to support this claim has emerged as yet. From an Australian perspective the possible deployment of S-300V family of missiles in Asia is of major concern. Rapidly deployable, high survivable, and highly lethal, these weapons are especially difficult to counter and require significant capabilities to robustly defeat. The US Air Force currently envisages the F-22A Raptor as the primary weapon used to defeat these capable systems. It is important to note that no F/A-18 variant, nor the Joint Strike Fighter, were designed to penetrate the coverage of the S-300V/VM systems. The survivability of these aircraft will not be significantly better than that of legacy combat aircraft.
dual role SAM/ABM system which remains without equivalent to this day. It was to be an Army level or Corp level asset, protecting the centre of gravity of the Red Army's mechanised land forces against attack by nuclear and conventionally armed systems. The S-300V was supplanted by the enhanced S-300VM during the 1990s, using the 9S15M2/MT2E/MV2E, 9S19ME, 9S32ME and 9S457ME components, and improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles. This system has been marketed as the Antey 2500, intended to highlight its capability to engage 2,500 km range IRBMs with re-entry velocities around 4.5 km/sec. The 9M82M has double the range of the 9M82 against aerial targets, at 108 nautical miles, and increased terminal phase agility - a single shot kill probability of 98% is claimed against ballistic targets. The S-300VMK is a proposed wheeled configuration of the design, using a BAZ 69096 10 x 10 all terrain truck chassis.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
S-300V Battery components, above left to right, 9A83 TELAR, 9A84 TEL/TL with crane elevated, 9A82 TELAR, below left to right, 9S15 Bill Board acquisition radar, 9S457 CP and 9S32 Grill Pan engagement radar.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The S-300VM / SA-23 retains the basic battery structure of the earlier variant, replacing individual components with revised designs.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
W hile the S-300VM sees incremental improvements in most components, the 9M32M/ME engagement radar underwent a significant redesign, especially in the antenna. Brochure material produced by the manufacturer shows a design which can be best described as a hybrid of components from the Grill Pan and the High Screen. The larger aperture High Screen array is employed, combined with revised IFF array and interferometer / sidelobe blanker antenna array below the primary aperture. The high and low angle circular polarised monopulse space feeds are retained but repositioned for the different array geometry. The new enlarged aperture will exhibit almost twice the gain of the Grill Pan, much better angular resolution especially for targets near the zenith, and improved heightfinding performance. The 9S32M/ME will have a much higher peak power rating compared to the 9S32 Grill Pan
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
since the additional range of the 9M82M cannot be accommodated by the ~3 dB poweraperture improvement produced by the larger antenna alone. A more detailed analysis will not be possible until good quality imagery of prototypes or production systems becomes available.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
supersonic missiles such as the AGM-69 SRAM, and sweeps a narrower 60 degree sector in azimuth, between 9 and 50 degrees in elevation, within a range box between 10 and 90 nautical miles, generating target position and velocity updates at 2 second intervals. The third mode is intended to acquire aircraft in severe jamming environments, with similar angular and range parameters to the second mode. The radar is claimed to produce RMS angular errors of around 12 to 15 minutes of arc, and a range error of a mere 70 metres (at max range 0.04%!). The peak power rating remains undisclosed. In function the 9S19 most closely resembles much newer Western X-band ABM radars, but is implemented using seventies generation antenna and transmitter technology, and is fully mobile unlike the semimobile US THAAD X-band radar, and Israeli Green Pine. A more detailed discussion can be found under Search and Acquisition Radars.
modelled on the earlier US Martin Marietta Sprint ABM which was similar in size to the 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator but had performance closer to the 9M82 / SA-12B Giant. Both Soviet missiles, intended to kill both aerial and ballistic targets, outrange the more specialised Sprint ABM. The smaller 9M83 Gladiator SAM/ATBM is intended to engage aerial targets at all altitudes, including cruise missiles, and smaller TBMs. The much larger 9M82 Giant has higher kinematic performance and is intended to kill IRBMs, SRAM class supersonic missiles, but also standoff jamming aircraft at long ranges. Both weapons employ two solid propellant stages, with thrust vector control of the first stage (10,225 lb / 4,636 kg mass in the Giant and ~5,000 lb / 2275 kg in the Gladiator) and aerodynamic control of the 2,800 lb (1,200 kg) second stage, using four servo driven fins, and four fixed stabilisers. The guidance and control packages, and much of the weapon airframes are almost identical, the principal distinction being the bigger booster stage of the Giant and its larger stabilisers 8,9. A cold start ejector is used to vertically expel the missile from the 9Ya238/9Ya240 (9M82/9M83) launch tube, using a spherical gas generator in the base of the tube, the 9D128 first stage burns until exhausted, upon which the missile jettisons the spent first stage and transitions to its 9D126 midcourse sustainer powerplant. Immediately post-launch, once the missile has cleared the launch tube, the 9D124 declination powerplant is engaged. This is a short burn duration thruster system, which employs several exhaust ports on the lower rim of the first stage nozzle. The purpose of this system is to effect a post-launch pitching manoeuvre to the intended target heading, and optimal elevation (pitch/yaw) angle for initiating the first stage motor burn. Once the missile has been pointed in the desired direction, the first stage motor is started and burns for 3.5 to 6.2 seconds in the 9M82, or 4.11 to 6.4 seconds in the 9M83. Flight control during the first stage burn is effected by four internal nozzle ports for gas injection Thrust Vector Control (TVC), in a manner similar to the Martin-Marietta Sprint ABM and ARPA HIBEX demonstrator. W hile the US designs injected liquid freon into the exhaust flow, the Novator design draws high pressure exhaust gas upstream of the nozzle and injects it into the exhaust stream at the point where the flow is described as supercritical. The first stage has a truncated conical shape, with most of the upper portion occupied by the annular conically shaped bonded solid propellant motor, which exhausts into a conventional bell nozzle, with TVC ports located close to the combustion chamber exist aperture. An external cable duct is used to carry electrical power and control signals to the two TVC control systems in the first stage. Once the first stage it expended it is jettisoned by pyrotechnic charge, and the kill vehicle 9D126 bonded solid propellant sustainer is ignited. The sustainer occupies the portion of the fuselage which can be identified by the four symmetrical external cable ducts, which connect the guidance systems in the nose section with the aft section containing control surface actuators and the electrical powerplant. The bell shaped sustainer nozzle in the tail is fed by a central cylindrical exhaust duct which passes through the aft fuselage section. Burn duration is cited at 11.2 - 17.2 seconds for both the 9M82 and 9M83. Observation of 9M82 Giant launch footage confirms the stated stage burn durations, and also indicates the use of an energy management profile, where the missile boosts to an apogee, and post apogee flies a pulldown/pullup manoeuvre before transitioning into a shallow dive as it closes with the the intended target. Both missile types employ four actuator driven cruciform tail control surfaces, and four fixed stabilising fins, smaller than the control surfaces in the 9M83, and equally sized in the 9M82. Power for the actuators and guidance avionics is produced by the 9B153 gas turbine electrical powerplant, which drives two AC busses at 1,000 Hz, and two DC busses. High pressure gas is produced by an starting gas generator cartridge and a sustainer gas generator cartridge. During midcourse flight the missile employs inertial navigation. This is performed using the onboard 9B619 digital computer, and a 9B627 inertial unit. Two midcourse guidance modes are employed: 1. Inertial Guidance: in this mode target position and velocities are continuously updated by a datalink channel and the autopilot flies the missile using a P-nav algorithm, with vehicle position and velocities derived from the onboard inertial system. ; 2. Command Inertial Method (KIM): in this mode missile and target position and velocities are uploaded via a datalink channel. In the former mode it transitions to its semi-active homing seeker during the final 10 seconds of flight, in the latter 3 seconds before impact - a technique preferred for heavy
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
jamming environments. The midcourse guidance system attempts to fly the most energy efficient trajectory to maximise range. The datalink channel antennas are embedded in the cruciform tail surfaces. The endgame homing algorithm has not been disclosed. The 9E49/DB-100N semi-active homing seeker will generate target angles and angle rates. It is likely that a P-nav algorithm with lead bias is employed. The antenna is cued to the target pitch/yaw angles during endgame closure by the onboard computer. Russian sources claim the dual plane monopulse two-channel X-band semi-active seeker can lock on to a 0.05 m 2 RCS target from 16.2 nautical miles. A two channel radio proximity fuse is used to initiate the 9N127 330 lb (150 kg) class smart warhead which has a controllable fragmentation pattern to maximise effect. The missile is also equipped with a self destruct system. As the missile approaches the target, it will perform a rolling manoeuvre to align the directional warhead with the plane of the target. The proximity fused warhead produces a high velocity stream of fragments in a narrow cone normal to the axis of the missile. 9M82 Giant missile velocity entering the endgame is ~3.5 M. The engagement envelope of the baseline Gladiator is between 80 ft AGL to 80 kft, and ranges of 3.2 to 40 nautical miles, the Giant between 3,200 ft AGL to 100 kft, and ranges of 7 to 54 nautical miles. The system can launch the missiles at 1.5 second intervals, and a battalion with four batteries can engage 24 targets concurrently, with 2 missiles per target, and has a complement of between 96 and 192 missiles available for launch on TELAR/TELs. A TELAR can arm a missile for launch in 15 seconds, with a 40 second time to prepare a TELAR for an engagement, and 5 minute deploy and stow times - a genuine hide, shoot and scoot capability. The cited single shot kill probabilities for the Gladiator are 50% to 65% against TBMs and 70% to 90% against aircraft, for the Giant 40% to 60% against IRBMs and 50% to 70% against the AGM-69 SRAM - ballistic missiles with re-entry velocities of up to 3 km/s can be engaged. Russian sources credit the missiles with endgame capability against 7-8G manoeuvring targets. The later 9M82M and 9M83M are credited with a 30G endgame capability. The Soviets were terrified of the EF-111A fleet operated by Tactical Air Command and equipped the S-300V system with a facility for passive targeting of support jammers. The 9S15, 9S19 and 9S32 have receiver channels for sidelobe jamming cancellation and these are used to produce very accurate bearings to the airborne jammer, this bearing information is then used to develop angular tracks. The angular tracks are then processed by the 9S457 command post to estimate range, and the 9S32 then develops an estimated track for the target jammer. A Giant missile is then launched and steered by command link until it acquires the target.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9M82 / SA-12B Giant and 9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator Missile Layouts [Click to enlarge].
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9M82 / SA-12B Giant 9Ya238 Missile Launch Tube / Transport Container. The spherical container (7) in the base of the launch tube is the high pressure gas generator pressure vessel for the cold launch system. The forward and centre missile fuselage is held in position in the tube by supporting braces (8) [Click to enlarge].
9M83 / SA-12A Gladiator 9Ya240 Missile Launch Tube / Transport Container. The control surfaces are folded before the missile clears the tube, the short span stabilisers are fixed in position [Click to enlarge].
9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Cutaway. 1 - Proximity Fuse Antenna; 2 - Seeker Antenna; 3 - DB-100N Seeker; 4 Proximity Fuse RF Module; 5 - Proximity Fuse Antenna; 6 Computer; 7 - Inertial Guidance and Navigation Unit; 8 Safety Device; 9 - Warhead; 10 - Cable Duct; 11 - Gas Turbine Module; 12 - Connector; 13 - Connector; 14 Cable Duct; 15 - Hydraulic Power System; 16 - Switch; 17 - Gas Generator; 18 - Declination Thruster; 19 Control Actuator; 20 - Compensator; 21 - Stabiliser; 22 - Aerodynamic Control Surface; 23 - Selector Switch; 24 Stage Separation Mechansim; 25 - Electrical Initiator; 26 - Explosive Charge; 27 - Kill Vehicle Gas Generator; 28 Control Surface Actuators [Click to enlarge].
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9M82 / SA-12B Giant Missile Booster Nozzle. I denotes the TVC port [Click to enlarge].
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
1. S-300V1: early production configuration; 2. S-300V2: block upgrade with improved ABM acquisition capability using paired optical cable networked 9S19M2 High Screen radars instead of the 9S15M Bill Board; 3. S-300V3: block upgrade with extended engagement range missiles, with a claimed doubling of range performance against aerial targets; 4. S-300V4: deep modernisation with improvements over the S-300V3, providing 1.5 2.3 times the capability of earlier variants, and intended for deployment with Russian Army units in 2011. At this time virtually nothing of substance has been disclosed on the configuration of the S300V4 block upgrade, with many sources simply claiming it to be classified. The cited doubling of aerodynamic target engagement range would suggest the use of the kinematically improved 9M82M and 9M83M missiles, developed for the S-300VM, and possibly the much improved 9S32M Grill Screen engagement radar, also developed for the S300VM. It remains to be seen what other portions of the S-300VM/VMK designs will migrate into the S-300V4. The term deep modernisation in Russian literature can often mean almost complete replacement of most of a legacy design. It is likely that the S-300V4 upgrade will be designated by NATO as an SA-23 system.
3K81M/S-300VM/VME/Antey-2500/SA-23 The improved 3K81M/S-300VM/VM1/VM2/VMD/VME/Antey-2500 or SA-X-23/SA-23 is most easily differentiated from the 3K81/S-300V by the redesigned 9S32M/ME Grill Screen engagement radar, but no less importantly it employs kinematically superior 9M82M/ME missile rounds. The acquisition radars are the improved 9S15M/MV / Bill Board B and 9S19M2 Imbir / High Screen B. Cited range performance for the 9M82M missile was initially 200 km against aerial targets, but more recently this is cited by the manufacturer at 250 km. Cited range improvements for the 9S15M2 Bill Board B are 320+ km versus the Bill Board A, and for the 9S18M2 High Screen B 250 km versus 175 km for the High Screen A. The most prominent change in the radar suite is the 9S32M Grill Screen, which employs the much larger space fed antenna design of the 9S32 High Screen, and a higher peak power. The cited range performance for a fighter sized target is in excess of 200 km, and likely better than 250 km given the more recently revised kinematic range for the 9M82M missile. W hile the range performance of the 9M82M/ME and 9M83M/ME missiles against aerial targets is not as good as the contemporary S-400 / SA-21 40N6 missile, the 9M82M/ME matches the kinematic range of the S-400 / SA-21 48N6E3, and outperforms the S-300PMU2 Favorit / SA-20B 48N6E2 missile, and all earlier 48N6 series missiles. In terms of performance against ballistic targets, the 9M82M/ME outperforms the 48N6E2 missile and provides almost identical performance to the much newer 48N6E3 missile.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Importantly, the two stage S-300V/VM missiles are built for much higher acceleration than the S-300P missiles, also reflected in launch footage. The result is that for engagements against aerial targets, the S-300V/VM missiles have a shorter time of flight, and at similar ranges will have considerably higher kinetic energy for endgame manoeuvres compared to their single stage 48N6 series cousins. The cited average speed for the 9M82 missile across the whole trajectory is around 85-90% of the maximum speed cited for the 48N6E2/E3 missiles. The shorter flight time and higher endgame energy of the S-300V/VM missiles reduces available reaction time for the aircraft under attack, which will be reflected in higher missile lethality.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
3K81MK/S-300VMK/SA-23 A proposal which emerged over the last decade is the S-300VMK (K - ), a variant of the S-300VM in which the Article 830 series tracked chassis is replaced by the BAZ 69096 10 x 10 all terrain truck chassis, a vehicle design more frequently associated with heavy cranes and drilling rigs. This vehicle family is also used for the new S-400 Triumf 5P85TE2 TEL.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The S-300VMK was to be hosted on a variant of the 10 x 10 BAZ-69096 (image 2011 Michael Jerdev).
The intent behind a wheeled chassis is likely to be compliance with the post 2005 Russian MoD policy change to wheeled SAM system chassis rather than tracked. A wheeled variant is less costly to procure and operate, and provides much higher road speed at the expense of cross country performance. Very little material has emerged to date on the S-300VMK and the design may have been shelved with the failure to secure export orders for the S-300V/VM product family. However, this does not preclude a future transplant of the extant S-300V radar/TELAR inventory to the BAZ 69096 chassis on operating cost and supportability grounds, as is occurring now with legacy ZRK Romb/SA-8B Gecko systems, which are being transplanted to new MZKT-6922 vehicles.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
S-300VMK in stowed configuration. The 9A82MK TELAR and 9A84MK, 9A85MK TELs are not depicted. Note the large elevating mast on the 9S457MK CP (Russian Internet - unknown author).
to materialise, compared to the large number of S-300PMU/PMU1/PMU2 systems sold to the PRC. In 2003 the Russian government authorised a merger between Almaz, Altair and Antey to produce what is likely to be world's largest SAM system manufacturer. Reports emerged in late 2010 that Venezuela had ordered at least one battery of the S-300V system, presumably refurbished Russian inventory equipment. The claim was reiterated in a Russian Interfax agency report of the 15th April, 2011. Other claims for the Venezuelan order include twelve regiments of the missile, the S-300VM/Antey-2500 missile, the S300PMU1 and S-300PMU2 missiles.
Like the S-300P series systems, the S-300V uses the cold launch technique, originally developed for rapid reload ICBM silos, ejecting the missile before its motor is fired. These 9M83 SAMs are being launched from a 9A83 TELAR, which uses its elevated directional antenna to provide the 9M83 with both midcourse command updates and terminal phase high power continuous wave illumination of the target. Antey claim the semi-active seeker will acquire a 0.05 square metre RCS target at 16 nautical miles (Rosvooruzheniye).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
, Time to prepare SAM for launch [sec] , Time to transition system from standby mode to operational mode [sec] ( ) Single battery missile count (on TELARs and TEL/Transloaders) "" 983 9M83 Gladiator Single Shot Pk [-] vs Lance TBM 983 9M83 Gladiator Single Shot Pk [-] vs aircraft target "" 982 9M82 Giant Single Shot Pk [-] vs Pershing RV 982 9M82 Giant Single Shot Pk [-] vs AGM-69A SRAM
75 25 6 0,025
100 30 13 1
30
30
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9T325 9868-1/1R15 9898-1/1R16 9V878-1 9V879-1 9V91 9V927 PES-100T/400-AKP1 UKS-400V AGZ-M1 9F88 9M82UR/UD, 9M83UR/UD 9M82/9M83
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1+1 24-48
Missile Rigging Station Equipment Repair/Test Station Equipment Repair Station Equipment Repair Station Equipment Repair Station Mobile Automatic Test Station Mobile Automatic Test Station Mobile Power Generator Mobile Air Compressor Mobile Workshop Training Simulator Training Round, Cutaway Training Round Missile Reloads
9K81 Battalion Components (4 Batteries) 9S457 1 Self Propelled Command Post 9S15MT Obzor 3 / Bill Board 1 Self Propelled Acquisition Radar 9S19M2 High Screen 1 Self Propelled ABM AcquisitionRadar
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
A pair of 9A82 TELARs deployed. The illuminator does not elevate in this design (Image 2009, Sergey Kuznetsov). Additional image [Click for more ...]
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9A83 TELAR in deployed configuration. This image shows the elevating a telescoping illuminator mast to effect. The design is intended to improve low altitude coverage, which is not a requirement for the longer ranging 9M82 missile (Author unknown). 9A83 TELAR Deployed. Additional image [Click here ...]
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Above, below: 9S32 Grill Pan S-300V engagement radar deployed on an Article 830 series tracked vehicle (NIEMI images).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9S32M/ME Engagement Radar. This design is hybrid of components from the 9S19 High Screen and 9S32 Grill Pan. It has improved range performance, cited at 200 km but likely better (Antey).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9S15MT Bill Board (Image Miroslav Gyrsi). Additional Images [1], [2].
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
9S19 Imbir / High Screen acquisition radar ( Image 2009, Sergey Kuznetsov).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The 9S457 series is a dedicated and fully integrated self propelled command post for the S-300V/SA-12 battery (NIEMI image).
The 9T32M1 self-propelled crane is a late model of the standard loading crane used with 2K12 / SA-6 Gainful and 9K37M1 / SA-11 Gadfly batteries. The URAL-375 chassis is used. (Russian internet).
Above: Sprint ABM prototype (US DoD); below: 9M82 Giant ( Miroslav Gyrsi).
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The nearest Western equivalent to the S-300V/VM missiles was the Martin-Marietta Sprint Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM), an endo-atmospheric interceptor developed for endgame terminal defence of high value strategic targets under attack by Soviet ICBMs and SLBMs. W hile the Sprint was successfully tested from mid-1960s, the program was cancelled very shortly after the first Safeguard ABM site equipped with Sprint missiles attained IOC in 1975 6. The Sprint was designed for unprecedented boost phase acceleration, using a two stage solid propellant design, and a unique conical airframe shape. The best summary of the control system design of the Sprint, later used in the HIBEX demonstrator, is by Baucom 7: I n spite of its nuclear w arhead, Sprints mission of picking up leakers in the low er atmosphere meant that its control system had to be capable of producing extremely high g maneuvers. I ts mission profile called for it to intercept incoming w arheads at altitudes of betw een 5,000 and 100,000 feet w ithin seconds of launch. A typical intercept might occur at an altitude of 40,000 feet and a range of 10 miles after only 10 seconds of flight. Sprint w as cold-launched, w ith the interceptor ejected from its silo by a gas-pow ered piston. Once out of the silo, its pow erful rocket motors rammed the missile through the dense low er atmosphere causing its skin to glow incandescently due to atmospheric heating. During first-stage burn, control forces w ere generated by a thrust vector control (T VC) system that injected Freon into the motors nozzle from four different points. (Freon w as selected because of the experience gained w ith its use in the T VC systems of Minuteman and Polaris.) After booster separation, the second stage w as guided by means of aerodynamic forces acting on small control vanes at the base of this stage. As in the case of the Sprint first stage, the principal means of control in HI BEX w as the injection of Freon gas into the exhaust of the booster. How ever, in later flights, experiments w ith other control techniques w ere performed. T he T VC system of HI BEX consisted of four valves spaced at 90 degrees around the nozzle of the motor; each valve w as capable of injecting a total of 194 pounds of Freon per second at 1,400 psi. Each valve fed three nozzles. HI BEX carried a maximum of 98 pounds of Freon, but only 78 pounds w ere usable. T he Freon w as fed by means of a blow -dow n system that used compressed nitrogen as its source of pressure. T his system w as designed to provide 2.5 degrees maximum thrust vector deflection w hich amounted to 2.5 percent of motor impulse w ith a maximum response time of 20 milliseconds. T his thrust w as the equivalent to a side force of 15,000 pounds in less than 0.05 second. The basic design of the S-300V missile airframe, propulsion system and control system closely reflects the Sprint design. Unlike the Sprint which was a dedicated ABM interceptor armed with a low yield nuclear warhead and guided by command uplink, the S-300V missiles are dual role designs intended to kill ballistic missiles and aircraft, and employ a semiactive radar homing terminal seeker, and a directional conventional warhead. A parametric comparison of all three missiles is worthwhile, and summarised in Table A.1:
Parameter Length [m] Diameter [m] Sprint ABM 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) 1.35 m (4 ft 5 in) 9M83 Gladiator 9M82 Giant 7.898 9.913 0.915 1.215 9M82M SA-23 9.913 1.215
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
3,500 kg (7,700 lb) Mach 10+ 30,000 (100,000 ft) 40.0 (25 miles) Hercules X-265 solid-fueled rocket; 1st Stage Propulsion 2900 kN (650,000 lb) for 1.2 s 2nd Stage Propulsion Hercules X-271 solid-fueled rocket Warhead [kg] W-66 thermonuclear (1 kT)
3,500 3.6+ (mean) 25,000 40.0 (75.0 A/C) 2275 kg 1213 kg 150
5,800 5,800 7.8+ 5.4+ (mean) 30,000 30,000 40.0 (100.0 A/C) 4635 kg 1271 kg 150 4635 kg 1271 kg 150
T able A.1 The common second stage design of the Russian missiles, with a dual plane monopulse semi-active radar seeker under an ogival radome and 150 kg warhead, is much larger and heavier than the simple command link guided Sprint second stage. As a result, the 9M83 Gladiator missile falls short of the performance of the Sprint, despite almost identical launch weight and dimensions for both missiles. The 9M83/9M83M Giant missile delivers similar performance to the Sprint, but using a missile which is 66% heavier at launch, and considerably larger. The S-300V missiles therefore represent yet another example of US technology and concepts being adapted and improved upon by the Soviets.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
References/Sources
1. Said Aminov, Vestnik PVO, URL: http://pvo.guns.ru 2. , -300, RusArmy.com,
URL:http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/zrs_s-300v.html
3. , -300 ("-2500"),
RusArmy.com,URL:http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vsk/zrs_s-300vm.html
5. Michal Fiszer, Name of the Roses: Russias joint S-300 air defense system turned out to be nothing of the 6. 7.
sort, Military Microwaves Supplement 2006: Special Report, Microwave Journal Online, Horizon House, URL: http://www.mwjournal.com/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_867 Andreas Parsch, Martin Marietta Sprint , Astronautix.com, URI: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sprint.htm. Baucom D.R., Developing Missile Flight Controls: From Guide Sticks to Impulse Thrusters, Advances in Technology, in Cameron R.H. (Ed), Golden Legacy, Boundless Future; Essays on the United States Air Force and the Rise of Aerospace Power, Air Force History and Museums Program, 2000, URI: http://www.afhso.af.mil/booksandpublications/titleindex.asp. 982, , 982.0000 , 1984 (Article 9M82, Technical Description, 9M82.0000 TO / Technical Order document, Soviet MoD). 983, , 983.0000 , 1982 (Article 9M82, Technical Description, 9M83.0000 TO / Technical Order document, Soviet MoD). , , , 20/08/2010, URI: http://www.redstar.ru/ Adrian Ochsenbein, SA-12 Gladiator/Giant, Technical Report, Defence Threat Information Group, V.8, June, 2011. . , . . -2500. , #25, 1998; URI: http://milparade.udm.ru/ru/25/034.htm -300 (-2500), Almaz-Antey website; Accessed August 2011, URI: http://www.almazantey.ru/catalogue/millitary_catalogue/
Artwork, graphic design, layout and text 2004 - 2013 Carlo Kopp; Text 2004 - 2013 Peter Goon; All rights reserved. Recommended browsers. Contact webmaster. Site navigation hints. Current hot topics. Site Update Status: $Revision: 1.733 $ Site History: Notices and Updates / NLA Pandora Archive
Save Page as PDF
Tweet 17 Follow @APA_Updates
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com